• 
.*:# 


m 


LIBRARY 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 


PRESENTED  BY 
MR.    GEORGE  COBB 


i 


s 


Sr        Xtol  if***^    . 


•«_»_  .  *r    "  I  • 

*>.  .*  •  •  * 


UC.SB    LIBKAHI 


* 


OUR  UNITARIAN  GOSPEL 


M.  J.   SAVAGE 


"  The  good  news  of  the  blessed  God  " 


BOSTON 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS,  141   FRANKLIN  STREET 
1898 


COPYRIGHT 
BY  GEORGB  H.  ELLIS 


GEO.  H.  BLLI3,  PRINTER,    141    FRANKLIN  SHEET,  BOSTON 


IDe&tcation 


THOSE  WHO  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  MESSAGE  OF  GOD  TO  HIS  CHILDREN 

MUST  BE  ONE  OF  LIFE  AND   HOPE   INSTEAD   OF  A 

THEOLOGY   WHICH   TEACHES   DEATH 

AND    DESPAIR. 


NOTE. 

The  sermons  which  make  up  this  volume  were  spoken  in  the 
Church  of  the  Messiah  during  the  season  of  1897-98.  They  are 
printed  as  delivered, —  not  as  literature,  but  for  the  sake  of  preaching 
to  a  larger  congregation  than  can  be  reached  on  Sunday  morning. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

UNITARIAN  ISM I 

"WHAT   DO   YOU    GIVE   IN    PLACE  OF   WHAT   YOU   TAKE  AWAY?"  19 

ARE  THERE  ANY  CREEDS  WHICH   IT  is  WICKED  FOR  us  TO 

QUESTION  ? 34 

WHY  HAVE  UNITARIANS  No  CREED? 52 

THE  REAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  PRESENT  RELIGIOUS   DIS- 
CUSSION      71 

DOUBT  AND  FAITH — BOTH  HOLY 90 

Is  LIFE  A  PROBATION  ENDED  BY  DEATH? no 

SIN  AND  ATONEMENT 128 

PRAYER,  AND  COMMUNION  WITH  GOD 145 

THE  WORSHIP  OF  GOD 162 

MORALITY  NATURAL,  NOT  STATUTORY 180 

REWARD  AND  PUNISHMENT 198 

THINGS  WHICH  DOUBT  CANNOT  DESTROY 214 

EVOLUTION  LOSES  NOTHING  OF  VALUE  TO  MAN 230 

WHY  ARE  NOT  ALL  EDUCATED  PEOPLE  UNITARIANS  ....  248 

WHERE  is  THE  EVANGELICAL  CHURCH?      ...  266 


UNITARIANISM. 


THROUGH  the  lack  of  having  made  themselves  familiar 
with  the  matter,  there  is  a  common  and,  I  think,  a  wide- 
spread impression  among  people  generally  that  Unitarian- 
ism  is  a  new-fangled  notion,  a  modern  fad,  a  belief  held 
only  by  a  few,  who  are  one  side  of  the  main  currents  of 
religious  life  and  advance. 

Even  if  it  were  new,  even  if  it  were  confined  to  the 
modern  world,  this  would  not  necessarily  be  anything 
against  it.  The  Copernican  theory  of  the  universe  is  new, 
is  modern.  So  are  most  of  the  great  discoveries  that  char- 
acterize and  glorify  the  present  age. 

But  in  the  case  of  Unitarianism  this  cannot  be  said.  It 
is  not  new :  it  is  very  old.  And,  before  I  come  to  discuss 
and  outline  a  few  of  its  great  principles,  it  seems  to  me  well 
that  we  should  get  in  our  minds  a  background  of  historic 
thought,  that  we  may  see  a  little  what  are  the  sources  and 
origins  of  this  Unitarianism,  and  may  understand  why  it  is 
that  there  is  a  new  and  modern  birth  of  it  in  the  modern 
world. 

All  races  start  very  far  away  from  any  Monotheistic  or 
Unitarian  belief.  The  Hebrews  are  no  exception  to  that 
rule.  The  early  part  of  the  Bible  shows  very  plain  traces 
of  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  polytheists  and  nature-wor- 
shippers. If  I  should  translate  literally  the  first  verse  of 
the  Bible,  it  would  read  in  this  way  :  "  In  the  beginning  the 


2  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Strong  Ones  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  The  word 
that  we  have  translated  "  God  "  is  in  the  plural ;  and  I  have 
already  given  you  its  meaning.  This  is  only  a  survival,  a 
trace,  of  that  primeval  belief  which  the  Jews  shared  with  all 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

From  this  polytheistic  position  the  people  took  a  step  for- 
ward to  a  state  of  mind  which  Professor  Max  Miiller  calls 
henotheism ;  that  is,  they  believed  in  the  real  existence  of 
many  gods,  but  that  they  were  under  allegiance  to  only  one, 
their  national  Deity,  and  that  him  only  they  must  serve. 

I  suppose  this  state  of  thought  was  maintained  through- 
out the  larger  part  of  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
You  will  find  traces  constantly — in  the  early  part  of  the  Old 
Testament,  at  any  rate  —  of  the  belief  of  the  people  in  the 
other  gods,  and  their  constant  tendency  to  fall  away  to  the 
worship  of  these  other  gods.  But  by  and  by  all  this  was 
outgrown,  and  left  behind  ;  and  the  Hebrew  people  came  to 
occupy  a  position  of  monotheism,  spiritual  monotheism, — 
that  is,  they  were  passionate  Unitarians,  so  far  as  the  mean- 
ing of  that  word  is  concerned.  Though,  of  course,  I  would 
not  have  you  understand  that  many,  perhaps  most,  of  the 
principles  which  are  held  to-day  under  the  name  of  Uni- 
tarian were  known  to  them  at  that  time,  or  would  have 
been  accepted,  had  they  been  known. 

In  the  sense,  however,  of  believing  in  the  oneness  of  God, 
they  were  Unitarians. 

Now,  when  Christianity  comes  into  the  world,  what  shall 
we  say  ?  It  is  the  assumption  on  the  part  of  most  of  the 
old-time  churches  that  Jesus  made  it  perfectly  plain  to  his 
disciples  that  he  was  a  divine  being,  that  he  claimed  to  be 
one  himself,  and  that  the  claim  was  recognized. 

So  far,  however,  as  any  authentic  record  with  which  we 


Unitarianism  3 

are  familiar  goes,  Jesus  himself  was  a  Unitarian.  All  the 
disciples  were  Unitarians.  Paul  was  a  Unitarian.  The  New 
Testament  is  a  Unitarian  book  from  beginning  to  end.  The 
finest  critics  of  the  world  will  tell  you  that  there  is  no  trace 
of  any  other  teaching  there.  And  so,  for  the  first  three 
hundred  years  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  Unitarianism 
was  its  prevailing  doctrine. 

I  have  no  very  good  memory  for  names.  So  I  have  brought 
here  a  little  leaflet  which  contains  some  that  I  wish  to  speak 
of.  Among  the  Church  Fathers, —  Clement,  Polycarp,  Ire- 
naeus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  Lactantius, —  all  of  them  in 
their  writings  make  it  perfectly  clear  and  unquestioned  that 
the  belief  of  the  Church,  the  majority  belief  for  the  first 
three  centuries,  was  Unitarian.  Of  course,  the  process  of 
thought  here  and  there  was  going  on  which  finally  culmi- 
nated in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  That  is,  people  were 
beginning  more  and  more  to  exalt,  as  they  supposed,  the 
character,  the  office,  the  mission  of  Jesus ;  coming  more  and 
more  to  believe  that  he  was  something  other  than  a  man, 
that  he  was  above  and  beyond  humanity. 

But  one  other  among  the  Fathers, —  Justin  Martyr, —  one 
of  the  best  known  of  all,  takes  care  to  point  out  explicitly 
his  belief.  I  will  read  you  just  two  or  three  words  from  it. 
He  says :  "  There  is  a  Lord  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  being  his 
Father  and  God,  and  the  Cause  of  his  existence." 

This  belief,  then,  was  universal,  practically  universal, 
throughout  the  first  three  centuries.  But  the  process  of 
growth  was  going  on  which  finally  culminated  in  the  con- 
troversy which  was  settled  by  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  held  in 
the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century;  that  is,  the  year  325. 
The  leaders  of  this  controversy,  as  you  know,  were  Arius, 
on  the  Unitarian  side,  and  Athanasius,  fighting  hard  for  the 
doctrine  then  new  in  the  Church,  of  the  Trinity. 


4  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

The  majority  of  the  bishops  and  leading  men  of  the 
Church  at  that  time  were  on  the  side  of  Arius ;  but  at 
last  the  Emperor  Constantine  settled  the  dispute.  Now  you 
know  that  the  sceptre  of  a  despotic  emperor  may  not  rea- 
son, may  not  think ;  but  it  is  weightier  than  either  reason  or 
thought  in  the  settlement  of  a  controversy  like  this  at  such 
a  period  in  the  history  of  the  world.  So  Constantine  settled 
the  controversy  in  favor  of  the  Trinitarians ;  and  henceforth 
you  need  not  wonder  that  Unitarianism  did  not  grow,  for 
it  was  mercilessly  repressed  and  crushed  out  for  the  next 
thousand  years. 

Unitarianism,  however,  is  not  alone  in  this.  Let  me  call 
your  attention  to  a  fact  of  immense  significance  in  this  mat- 
ter. All  this  time  the  study  of  science  and  philosophy, 
that  dared  to  think  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Church's  doc- 
trine, were  crushed  out.  There  was  no  free  philosophy, 
there  was  no  free  study  of  science,  there  was  no  free  any- 
thing for  a  thousand  years.  The  secular  armed  forces  of 
Europe,  with  penalties  of  imprisonment,  of  the  rack,  of  the 
fagot,  of  torture  of  every  kind,  were  enlisted  against  any- 
thing like  liberty  of  thinking. 

So  you  need  not  wonder,  then,  that  there  was  neither  any 
science  nor  any  Unitarianism  to  be  heard  of  until  the 
Renaissance.  What  was  the  Renaissance  ?  It  was  the 
rising  again  of  human  liberty,  the  possibility  once  more  of 
man's  freedom  to  think  and  study.  Though  the  armed 
forces  of  Europe  were  for  a  long  time  against  it,  the  rising 
tide  could  not  be  entirely  rolled  back,  and  so  it  gained  on 
human  thought  and  human  life  more  and  more.  And  out  of 
this  the  Renaissance  came, —  the  new  birth  of  science,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other,  issuing  in  the  Reformation's 
assertion  of  the  right  of  thought  and  of  private  judgment 


Unitarianism  5 

in  matters  of  religion  ;  and  along  with  this  latter  the  rebirth 
of  Unitarianism,  its  reappearance  again  as  a  force  in  the 
history  of  the  world. 

During  this  Reformation  period  there  are  many  names  of 
light  and  power, —  among  them  being  Servetus,  whom  Calvin 
burned  because  he  was  a  Unitarian  ;  Laelius  and  Faustus 
Socinus,  Bernardino  Ochino,  Blandrata,  and  Francis  David ; 
and,  more  noted  in  some  ways  than  any  of  them,  Giordano 
Bruno,  the  man  who  represents  the  dawn  of  the  modern 
world  more  significantly  than  any  other  man  of  his  age, — 
not  entirely  a  Unitarian,  but  fighting  a  battle  out  of  which 
Unitarianism  sprung, —  freedom  of  thought,  the  right  of 
private  judgment,  the  scientific  study  of  the  universe,  the 
attempt,  unhampered  by  the  Church's  dogma  or  power,  to 
understand  the  world  in  which  we  live. 

As  a  result  of  this  Renaissance,  what  happened  ?  Let 
me  run  over  very  rapidly  the  condition  of  things  in  Europe 
at  the  present  time,  with  some  glances  back,  that  you  may 
see  that  Unitarianism  has  played  just  as  large  a  part  as  you 
could  expect  it  to  play, —  larger  and  grander  than  you  could 
expect  it,  considering  the  conditions. 

In  Hungary,  one  of  the  few  countries  where  freedom  of 
thought  in  religion  has  been  permitted,  there  has  been  a 
grand  organization  of  the  Unitarian  Church  for  more  than 
three  hundred  years, —  not  only  churches,  but  a  Unitarian- 
ism that  has  controlled  colleges  and  universities  and  di- 
rected the  growth  of  learning. 

Let  us  look  to  the  North.  In  Sweden  and  Norway  it  is 
still  a  crime  to  organize  a  church  that  teaches  that  Jesus 
is  not  God.  So  we  may  expect  to  find  no  Unitarian 
churches  there ;  though  there  are  many  and  noble  Unitarian 
men,  thinkers  and  teachers. 


6  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Come  to  Germany.  There  are  no  organized  Unitarian 
churches  under  that  name  here  ;  but  there  is  a  condition  of 
things  that  is  encouraging  for  us  to  note.  There  is  a  union 
of  the  Protestant  organizations,  in  which  the  liberals,  or 
Unitarians,  are  free,  and  have  their  part  without  any  ques- 
tion as  to  their  doctrine. 

There  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Unitarians  in  South 
Germany.  In  the  city  of  Bremen  I  called  on  a  clergyman 
who  had  translated  one  of  my  books,  and  found  out  from 
him  the  condition  of  things  there.  The  cathedral  of 
Bremen  has  half  a  dozen  different  preachers  attached  to  it. 
Some  of  them  are  orthodox,  and  some  are  Unitarian, —  all 
perfectly  free ;  living  happily  together  in  this  way,  and  the 
people  at  liberty  to  come  and  listen  to  which  one  of  them 
they  choose.  This  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  in  Germany. 
That  is  the  condition  of  things,  then,  there. 

In  Holland  there  are  no  Unitarian  churches,  no  churches 
going  by  that  name ;  but  there  are  thousands  of  Unitarians 
particularly  among  the  educated  and  leading  men,  and  one 
university,  that  of  Leyden,  entirely  in  control  of  the  liberal 
religious  leaders  of  the  country. 

When  you  come  to  France,  which  you  know  is  dominantly 
Catholic,  you  still  find  a  large  body  of  Protestants ;  but  one 
wing  of  their  great  organization  is  virtually  if  not  out  and  out 
Unitarian.  And  a  few  of  the  most  noted  preachers  of  the 
modern  time  in  France  have  been  Unitarians.  I  have  had 
correspondence  with  men  there  which  showed  that  they  were 
perfectly  in  sympathy  with  our  aims,  our  purposes,  our  work. 

In  Transylvania  and  Poland  there  were  large  numbers  of 
Unitarian  churches  which  were  afterwards  crushed  out. 

You  find,  then,  all  over  Europe,  all  over  civilization,  just 
as  much  Unitarianism  as  you  would  expect  to  find,  when  you 


Unitarianism  7 

consider  the  questions  as  to  whether  the  law  permits  it  and 
as  to  whether  the  people  are  educated  and  free. 

I  should  like,  not  for  the  sake  of  boasting,  but  simply  that 
you  may  see  that  you  are  in  good  company,  to  mention  the 
names  of  some  of  those  who  are  foremost  in  our  thought. 
Take  Mazzini,  the  great  leader  of  Italy ;  take  Castelar,  one 
of  the  greatest  men  in  modern  Spain ;  take  Kossuth,  the 
flaming  patriot  of  Hungary, —  all  Unitarian  men. 

Now  let  us  come  a  step  nearer  home:  let  us  consider 
England,  and  note  that  just  the  moment  free  thought  was 
allowed,  you  find  Unitarianism  springing  into  existence. 
Milton  was  a  Unitarian ;  Locke,  one  of  the  greatest  of  Eng- 
lish philosophers,  a  Unitarian ;  Dr.  Lardner,  one  of  its  most 
famous  theological  scholars,  a  Unitarian  ;  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton, one  of  the  few  names  that  belong  to  the  highest  order 
of  those  which  have  made  the  earth  glorious,  a  Unitarian. 

And,  then,  when  we  come  to  later  England,  we  find 
another  great  scientist,  comparatively  modern,  Dr.  Priest- 
ley, who,  coming  to  this  country  after  he  had  made  the  dis- 
covery of  oxygen  which  made  him  famous  for  all  time,  es- 
tablished the  first  Unitarian  church  in  our  neighbor  city  of 
Philadelphia. 

The  first  Unitarian  church  which  took  that  name  in  the 
modern  world  was  organized  in  London  by  Dr.  Theophilus 
Lindsey  in  1774;  and  its  establishment  coincides  with  the 
great  outburst  of  freedom  that  distinguished  the  close  of 
the  eighteenth  century. 

You  must  not  look  for  Unitarians  where  there  is  no 
liberty ;  for  it  is  a  cardinal  principle  of  their  thought  and 
their  life. 

Soon  after  the  London  movement,  the  first  Unitarian 
church  in  this  country  was  organized,  or  rather  the  first  Uni- 


8  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

tarian  church  came  into  existence.  It  was  the  old  King's 
Chapel  of  Boston,  an  Anglican  church,  which  came  out  and 
took  the  name  Unitarian. 

There  is  a  very  bright  saying  in  connection  with  this  old 
church,  which  I  will  pause  long  enough  to  repeat,  because 
there  is  a  principle  in  it  as  well  as  a  great  deal  of  wit.  They 
kept  there  the  old  English  church  service,  except  that  it 
was  purged,  according  to  their  point  of  view,  from  all 
Trinitarian  belief.  It  is  said  that  Dr.  Bellows,  who  was 
attending  a  service  there  some  years  ago,  had  with  him  an 
English  gentleman  as  a  visitor.  This  man  picked  up  the 
service,  looked  it  over,  and,  turning  to  Dr.  Bellows,  with  a 
sarcastic  look  on  his  face,  said,  "  Ah !  I  see  that  you  have 
here  the  Church  of  England  service  watered."  Whereupon 
Dr.  Bellows,  with  his  power  of  ready  wit,  replied,  "  No,  my 
dear  sir,  not  watered, —  washed." 

King's  Chapel,  then,  was  the  first  Unitarian  church  in  this 
country.  But  the  number  grew  rapidly,  and  in  a  few  years 
perhaps  half,  or  more  than  half,  of  the  old  historic  Puritan 
and  Pilgrim  churches  in  New  England  had  become 
Unitarian,  including  in  that  number  the  old  First  Church  of 
Plymouth. 

Now,  before  I  go  on  to  discuss  the  principles  underlying 
our  movement,  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  more 
names ;  and  I  trust  you  will  pardon  me  for  this.  There  is  no 
desire  for  vain-glory  in  the  enumeration.  I  simply  wish  that 
people  should  know  —  what  only  a  few  do  know  —  who  have 
been  Unitarians  in  the  past,  and  what  great  names,  leading 
authoritative  names  in  the  world's  literature  and  science  and 
art,  find  here  their  place. 

Among  the  Fathers  of  the  Revolution,  all  the  Adamses, 
Dr.  Franklin,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  many  another  were 


Unitarianism  9 

avowed  Unitarians.  And,  when  we  come  to  modern  times,  it 
is  worth  your  noting  that  all  our  great  poets  in  this  country, — 
Bryant,  Longfellow,  Whittier,  Holmes,  Lowell, —  and  in  this 
city  Stedman, —  are  Unitarian  names. 

Then  the  leading  historians  —  Bancroft,  Motley,  Prescott, 
Sparks,  Palfrey,  Parkman,  and  John  Fiske  —  are  Unitarians. 
Educators,  like  Horace  Mann,  like  the  last  seven  presidents 
of  Harvard  University,  Unitarians.  Great  scientists,  like 
Agassiz,  Peirce,  Bowditch,  Professor  Draper,  Unitarians. 
Statesmen  and  public  men,  like  Webster,  Calhoun,  the 
Adamses,  the  Hoars,  Curtis.  Two  of  our  great  chief  jus- 
tices, Marshall  and  Parsons.  Supreme  Court  Judges,  Story 
and  Miller.  Literary  men,  like  Whipple,  Hawthorne,  Ripley, 
and  Bayard  Taylor ;  and  eminent  women,  such  as  Margaret 
Fuller,  Lydia  Maria  Child,  Lucretia  Mott,  Helen  Hunt  Jack- 
son, Mrs.  Mary  A.  Livermore,  and  Mrs.  Julia  Ward  Howe. 

I  mention  these,  that  you  may  know  the  kind  of  men, 
ethical,  scientific,  judicial,  political,  literary,  who  have  been 
distinguished,  as  we  think  from  our  point  of  view,  by  being 
followers  of  this  grand  faith  of  ours. 

And  now  I  wish  you  to  note  again  —  what  I  hinted  at  a 
moment  ago, —  that  it  is  not  an  accident  that  Unitarianism 
should  spring  into  being  in  the  modern  world  coincidently 
with  the  great  movements  of  liberty  in  France  and  England, 
and  the  outburst  that  culminated  in  our  own  Revolution  and 
the  establishment  here  of  a  State  without  a  king  as  well  as 
of  a  church  without  a  bishop. 

Wherever  you  have  liberty  and  education,  there  you  have 
the  raw  materials  out  of  which  to  make  the  free,  forward 
looker  in  religious  thought  and  life. 

Now  what  are  the  three  principles  out  of  which  Unitari- 
anism is  born  ?  First, —  I  have  already  intimated  it,  but  I 


io  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

wish  to  emphasize  it  again  for  a  moment  with  an  addition  — 
Liberty.  Humanity  at  last  had  come  to  a  time  in  its  his- 
tory when  it  had  asserted  its  right  to  be  free ;  not  only  to 
cast  off  fetters  that  hampered  the  body,  not  only  to  dethrone 
the  despots  that  made  liberty  impossible  in  the  State,  but 
to  think  in  the  realm  of  religion,  to  believe  it  more  honor- 
able to  God  to  think  than  to  cringe  and  be  afraid  in  his 
presence. 

Second,  coincident  with  the  birth  of  Unitarianism  is 
an  enlargement  and  a  reassertion  of  the  conscience  of 
mankind.  A  demand  for  justice.  Just  think  for  a  moment, 
and  take  it  home  to  your  hearts,  that  up  to  the  time 
when  this  free  religious  life  was  born,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  all  the  old  creeds,  justice  and  right  had  been 
one  thing  here  among  men  and  another  thing  enthroned  in 
the  heavens.  The  idea  has  always  been  that  might  made 
right,  that  God,  because  he  was  God,  had  a  right  to  do 
anything,  though  it  controverted  and  contradicted  all  the 
ideas  of  human  righteousness  ;  and  that  we  still  must  bow 
in  the  dust,  and  accept  it  as  true. 

If  I  could  be  absolutely  sure  that  God  had  done  some- 
thing which  contradicted  my  conscience,  I  should  say  that 
probably  my  conscience  was  wrong.  I  should  wait  at  any 
rate,  and  try  to  find  out.  But,  when  I  find  that  the  condi- 
tion of  things  is  simply  this, —  that  certain  fallible,  unjust, 
uneducated,  barbaric  people  have  said  that  God  has  done 
certain  things, —  then  it  is  another  matter.  I  have  no  direct 
word  from  God :  I  have  only  the  report  of  men  whose  author- 
ity I  have  no  adequate  reason  to  accept. 

At  any  rate,  the  world  came  to  the  point  where  it  de- 
manded that  goodness  on  earth  should  be  goodness  up  in 
heaven,  too ;  that  God  should  at  least  be  as  just  and  fair  as 


Unitarianism  1 1 

we  expect  men  to  be.  And  that,  if  you  will  think  it  out  a 
little  carefully,  is  enough  to  revolutionize  the  theology  of  the 
world ;  for  the  picture  of  the  character  of  God  as  contained 
in  the  old  theologies  is  even  horribly  unjust,  as  judged  by 
any  human  standard. 

In  the  third  place,  Unitarianism  sprang  out  of  a  new 
revelation  of  love  and  tenderness.  As  men  became  more 
and  more  civilized,  they  became  more  tender-hearted ;  and 
they  found  it  impossible  to  believe  that  the  Father  in 
heaven  should  not  be  as  kind  and  loving  as  the  best  father 
on  earth. 

And  here,  again,  if  you  think  it  out,  you  will  find  that  this 
is  enough  to  compel  a  revolution  of  all  the  old  theological 
ideas  of  the  world. 

Just  as  soon,  then,  as  the  civilized  modern  world  became 
free,  there  was  a  new  expansion  of  the  sense  of  the  right  to 
think ;  there  was  a  new  expansion  of  conscience,  the  insist- 
ent demand  for  justice ;  there  was  a  new  expansion  of 
tenderness  and  love ;  and  out  of  these,  characterized  by 
these,  having  these  in  one  sense  for  its  very  soul  and  body, 
came  Unitarianism. 

Now  another  point.  It  is  commonly  assumed  by  those 
who  have  not  studied  the  matter  that,  because  Unitarians 
have  no  printed  and  published  creed,  they  are  all  abroad 
in  their  thinking.  They  take  this  for  granted ;  and  so  it  is 
assumed  by  people  who  speak  to  me  on  the  subject.  They 
think  that  there  must  be  just  as  many  views  of  things  as 
there  are  individuals. 

If  there  are  any  persons  here  having  this  idea,  perhaps 
I  shall  astonish  them  by  the  statement  I  am  going  to  make. 
After  more  than  twenty  years  of  experience  as  a  Unitarian 
minister,  I  have  come  to  the  conviction  that  there  is  not 


12  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

•a  body  of  Christians  in  the  world  to-day,  not  Catholic  or 
Presbyterian  or  Methodist  or  Congregational  or  any  other, 
that  is  so  united  in  its  purposes,  not  only,  but  in  its  beliefs, 
•as  these  very  Unitarians. 

And  the  fact  is  perfectly  natural.  Take  the  scientific  men 
-of  the  world.  They  do  not  expect  a  policeman  after  them 
if  they  do  not  hold  certain  scientific  opinions.  There  is  no 
authority  to  try  them  for  heresy  or  to  turn  them  out  of  your 
society  unless  they  hold  certain  scientific  ideas.  They  have 
no  sense  of  compulsion  except  to  find  and  accept  that 
which  they  discover  to  be  true.  The  one  aim  of  science 
is  the  truth.  There  is  no  motive  for  anything  else. 

And  truth  being  one,  mark  you,  and  they  being  free  to 
seek  for  it,  and  all  of  them  caring  simply  for  that,  they 
naturally  come  together,  inevitably  come  together.  So  that, 
without  any  external  power  or  orthodox  compulsion,  the 
scientific  men  of  the  world  are  substantially  at  one  as  to  all 
the  great  principles.  They  discuss  minor  matters ;  but,  when 
they  discuss,  they  are  simply  hunting  for  a  deeper  truth,  not 
trying  to  conquer  each  other. 

Now  Unitarians  are  precisely  in  this  position.  The  only 
thing  any  of  us  desire  is  the  truth.  We  are  perfectly  free  to 
seek  for  the  truth ;  and,  the  truth  being  one,  we  naturally 
tend  towards  it,  and,  tending  towards  it,  we  come  together. 
So  there  is,  as  I  said,  greater  unanimity  of  opinion  in  regard 
to  the  great  essential  points  among  Unitarians  than  among 
any  other  body  in  Christendom. 

Now,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  I  want  to  analyze  what  I  regard 
as  the  fundamental  principles  of  Unitarianism.  I  am  not 
going  to  give  you  a  creed,  I  am  not  going  to  give  you  my 
creed :  I  am  going  to  give  you  the  great  fundamental  prin- 
ciples which  characterize  and  distinguish  Unitarians. 


Unitarianism  1 3 

First,  liberty,  freedom  of  the  individual  to  think,  think 
as  he  will  or  think  as  he  must ;  but  not  liberty  for  the  sake 
of  itself.  Liberty  for  the  sake  of  finding  the  truth ;  for  we 
believe  that  people  will  be  more  likely  to  find  the  truth  if 
they  are  free  to  search  for  it  than  they  will  if  they  are  threat- 
ened or  frightened,  or  if  they  are  compelled  to  come  to 
certain  preordained  conclusions  that  have  been  settled  for 
them.  Freedom,  then,  for  the  sake  of  finding  the  truth. 

Second,  God.  The  deep-down  conviction  that  wisdom, 
power,  love, —  that  is,  God, —  is  at  the  heart  of  the  universe. 

Third,  that  God  is  not  only  wisdom  and  power  and  love, 
but  that  he  is  the  universal  Father, —  not  merely  the  Father 
of  the  elect,  not  merely  the  Father  of  Christians,  not  merely 
the  Father  of  civilized  people,  but  the  Father  of  all  men, — 
equally,  lovingly,  tenderly  the  Father  of  all  men. 

In  the  next  place,  being  the  Father  of  all  men,  he  would 
naturally  wish  to  have  them  find  the  truth.  So  we  believe 
in  revelation.  Not  in  revelation  confined  to  one  book  or 
one  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  world,  though  we  do  not 
deny  the  revelation  contained  in  them.  We  believe  that  all 
truth,  through  whatever  medium  it  comes  to  the  world,  is  in 
so  far  a  revelation  of  our  Father ;  and  it  is  infallible  revela- 
tion when  it  is  demonstrably  true,  and  not  otherwise. 

The  next  step,  then  :  in  the  words  of  Lucretia  Mott,  we 
believe  that  truth  should  be  taken  for  authority,  and  not 
authority  for  truth.  The  only  authority  in  the  world  is  the 
truth.  The  only  thing  to  which  intellectually  a  free  Uni- 
tarian can  afford  to  bow  is  ascertained  and  demonstrated 
truth.  We  believe,  then,  in  revelation. 

In  the  next  place,  we  believe  in  incarnation.  Not  in  the 
complete  incarnation  of  God  in  one  man,  in  one  country,  in 
one  age,  in  the  history  of  the  world.  We  believe  in  the 


14  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

incarnation  of  God  progressively  in  humanity.  All  that  is 
true,  all  that  is  beautiful,  all  that  is  good,  is  so  much  of  God 
incarnate  in  his  children,  and  reaching  ever  forth  and 
forward  to  higher  blossoming  and  grander  fruitage.  The 
difference  between  Jesus  and  other  men,  as  we  hold  it,  is 
not  a  difference  in  kind  :  it  is  a  difference  in  degree.  So  he 
is  the  son  of  our  Father,  our  elder  brother,  our  friend,  our 
leader,  our  helper,  our  inspiration. 

The  next  principle  of  Unitarianism  is  that  character  is 
salvation.  We  do  not  even  say  that  character  is  a  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  Character  is  salvation.  A  man  who  is 
right,  who  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  law  and  life  of  God, 
is  safe,  in  this  world,  in  all  worlds,  in  this  year,  in  all  future 
time. 

And,  then,  lastly,  we  believe  in  the  eternal  and  universal 
hope.  We  believe  that  God,  just  because  he  is  God,  is 
under  the  highest  conceivable  obligation,  not  to  me  only,  but 
to  himself,  to  see  to  it  that  every  being  whom  he  has  created 
shall  sometime,  somewhere,  in  the  long  run,  find  that  gift 
of  life  a  blessing,  and  not  a  curse. 

We  believe  in  retribution,  universal,  quick,  unescapable  ; 
for  we  believe  that  this  is  mercy,  and  that  through  this  is  to 
come  salvation. 

These,  then,  are  the  main  principles,  as  I  understand 
them,  of  Unitarianism. 

There  is  one  point  more  now  that  I  must  touch  on.  When 
I  was  considering  the  question  of  giving  this  series  of  ser- 
mons, one  of  my  best  friends  raised  the  question  as  to 
whether  I  had  better  put  the  word  "  Unitarian  "  into  the 
title.  He  was  afraid  that  it  might  prejudice  people  who  did 
not  like  the  name,  and  keep  them  from  listening  to  what  I 
had  to  say.  This  is  a  common  feeling  on  the  part  of  Uni- 


Unitarianism  15 

tarians.  I  was  trained  as  a  boy,  and  through  all  my  youth 
and  early  manhood  in  the  ministry,  to  look  with  aversion, 
suspicion,  on  Unitarianism,  and  to  hate  the  name.  But 
to-day,  after  more  than  twenty  years  of  experience  in  the 
Unitarian  ministry,  I  have  come  to  the  conviction,  which  I 
wish  to  suggest  to  you,  that  it  is  the  most  magnificent  name 
in  the  religious  history  of  the  world ;  and  I,  for  one,  wish  to 
hoist  it  as  my  flag,  to  inscribe  it  on  my  banner, — not  because 
I  care  for  a  name,  but  because  of  that  which  it  covers  and 
comprehends. 

Now,  not  in  the  slightest  degree  in  the  way  of  prejudice 
against  other  names  or  to  find  fault  with  them,  let  me  note 
a  few  of  them,  and  then  compare  Unitarianism  with  them. 
Take  the  word  "  Anglican,"  for  example,  the  name  of  the 
Church  of  England.  What  does  it  mean  ?  Of  course,  you 
know  it  is  simply  a  geographical  name.  It  defines  nothing 
as  to  the  Church's  government  or  belief  or  anything  else. 
There  is  the  word  "  Episcopal,"  which  simply  means  a  church 
that  is  governed  by  bishops ;  that  is  all.  Take  the  word 
"  Presbyterian,"  from  a  Greek  word  which  means  an  elder, 
—  a  church  governed  by  its  old  men  or  its  elders.  No 
special  significance  about  that.  Then  "  Baptist,"  signifying 
that  the  people  who  wear  that  name  believe  that  baptism 
always  means  immersion,  indicating  no  other  doctrine  by 
which  that  body  is  known,  or  its  method  of  government. 
"  Congregational,"  no  doctrine  significance  there.  It  simply 
means  a  church  whose  power  is  lodged  in  the  congregation. 
It  is  democratic  in  its  methods  of  government.  "  Method- 
ist,"—  applied  to  the  members  of  a  particular  church 
because  they  were  considered  over -exact  or  methodical  in 
their  ways.  There  is  no  governmental  significance  there. 
The  name  "Catholic"  or  "Universal"  is  chiefly  significant 
from  the  fact  that  the  claim  implied  by  it  is  not  true. 


16  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Now  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  word  "  Unitarian," 
and  see  whether  it  has  a  right  to  be  placed  not  only  on  a 
level  with  these,  but  infinitely  above  and  beyond  them  in 
the  richness,  in  the  wonder  of  its  meaning.  Let  me  lead 
you  to  a  consideration  of  it.  I  want  you  to  note  that  "  unity  " 
is  the  one  word  of  more  significance  than  any  other  in  the 
history  of  man  ;  and  that  it  is  growing  in  its  depth,  its  com- 
prehensiveness. What  have  we  discovered  ?  We  have  dis- 
covered in  this  modern  world,  only  a  few  years  ago,  that  this 
which  we  see,  the  earth,  the  stars,  and  all  the  wonders  of 
the  heavens,  is  one,  a  universe.  Not  only  that.  We  have 
discovered  the  unity  of  force.  There  are  not,  as  primitive 
man  supposed,  a  thousand  different  powers  in  the  universe, 
antagonistic  and  fighting  with  each  other.  We  have  learned 
to  know  that  there  is  just  one  force  in  the  universe.  That 
light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  all  these  marvellous  and 
diverse  varieties  of  forces,  are  one  force,  and  can  be  at  the 
will  and  skill  of  man  converted  into  each  other. 

Next,  we  have  learned  that  there  is  one  law  in  the 
universe. 

Should  we  not  be  Unitarians  ?  Should  we  not  believe  in 
the  unity  of  God,  when  we  can  see,  as  far  as  the  telescope 
can  reach  on  the  one  hand  and  the  microscope  on  the  other, 
one  eternal,  changeless  Order  ? 

Another  point.  We  have  learned  the  unity  of  substance. 
We  know  how  Comte,  the  famous  French  scientist,  advised 
his  followers  not  to  attempt  to  find  out  anything  about  the 
fixed  stars,  because,  he  said,  such  knowledge  was  forever 
beyond  the  reach  of  man.  How  long  had  Comte  been  dead 
before  we  discovered  the  spectroscope  ?  And  now  we  know 
all  about  the  fixed  stars.  We  know  that  the  stuff  we  step 
on  in  the  street  this  morning  as  we  go  home  from  church  is 


Unitarianism  1 7 

the  same  stuff  of  which  the  sun  is  made,  the  same  stuff  as 
that  which  flamed  a  few  years  ago  as  a  comet,  the  same 
stuff  as  that  which  shines  in  Sirius,  in  suns  so  many  miles 
away  that  it  takes  millions  of  years  for  their  light  to  reach 
us.  One  stuff,  one  substance,  throughout  the  universe  ;  and 
this  poor  old,  tear-wet  earth  of  ours  is  a  planet  shining  in  the 
heavens  as  much  as  any  of  them,  of  the  same  glorious  ma- 
terial of  which  they  are  made. 

Then,  again,  we  have  discovered  the  unity  of  life.  From 
the  little  tiny  globule  of  protoplasm  up  to  the  brain  of  Shaks- 
pere,  one  life  throbbing  and  thrilling  with  the  same  divinity 
which  is  at  the  heart  of  the  world. 

We  have  discovered  not  only  the  unity  of  life,  we  have 
discovered  the  unity  of  man.  Not  a  hundred  different  ori- 
gins, different  kinds  of  creatures,  different-natured  beings, 
but  one  blood  to  dwell  in  every  country  on  the  face  of  the 
earth  :  the  unity  of  nian. 

We  have  discovered  the  unity  of  ethics,  of  righteousness, 
of  right  and  wrong, —  one  right,  one  wrong.  A  million  ap- 
plications, but  one  goal  towards  which  all  those  who  hunger 
and  thirst  after  righteousness  are  striving. 

One  religion :  for  underneath  all  the  diversity  of  creeds 
and  religions,  barbaric,  semi-civilized,  civilized,  enlightened, 
we  find  man,  the  one  child  of  God,  hunting  for  the  clearest 
light  he  can  command,  after  the  one  Father, —  that  is,  the 
one  eternal,  universal  search  of  the  religious  life  of  the  race. 

Religion  then  one  ;  one  unifying  purpose  ;  every  step  that 
the  world  takes  in  its  progress  leading  it  towards  liberty, 
towards  light,  towards  truth,  towards  righteousness,  towards 
peace.  One  goal,  then,  for  the  progress  of  man. 

And,  then,  one  destiny.  Some  day,  every  soul,  no  matter 
how  belated,  shall  arrive ;  some  day,  somewhere,  every  soul, 


1 8  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

however  sin  stained,  shall  arrive  ;  every  soul,  however  small, 
however  distorted,  however  hindered,  shall  arrive.  One 
destiny.  Not  that  we  are  to  be  just  alike ;  only  that  some 
time  we  are  to  unfold  all  that  is  possible  in  us,  and  stand, 
full-statured,  perfect,  complete,  in  the  presence  of  our  Father. 
Do  I  not  well,  then,  to  say  that  Unity,  Unitarianism,  is  a 
magnificent  name, —  a  name  to  be  flung  out  to  the  breeze 
as  our  banner  under  which  we  will  fight  for  God  and  man ; 
a  name  beside  which  all  others  pale  into  insignificance ; 
a  name  that  sums  up  the  secret,  the  centre,  the  hope,  the 
outcome  of  the  universe  ?  Greatest  name  in  the  religious 
history  of  man,  it  coincides  with  that  magnificent  hope  so 
grandly  uttered  by  Tennyson,  - 

"  One  God,  one  law,  one  element, 

And  one  far-off  divine  event, 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 


WHAT  DO  YOU   GIVE   IN   PLACE  OF 
WHAT  YOU   TAKE  AWAY?" 


MY  theme  is  the  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  do  you 
give  in  place  of  what  you  take  away  ? "  For  my  text  I  have 
chosen  two  significant  passages  of  Scripture.  One  is  from 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Hebrews,  the  nineteenth  verse ;  and 
it  sets  forth,  as  I  look  at  it,  the  drift  and  outcome  of  the 
process  of  which  we  are  a  part,  — "  the  bringing  in  of  a 
better  hope."  Then  from  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews, 
the  thirty-ninth  and  fortieth  verses,  expressing  the  relation 
in  which  we  stand  to  those  who  have  looked  for  God  and 
his  work  in  the  past :  "  And  these  all,  having  obtained  a 
good  report  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise ;  God 
having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  with- 
out us  should  not  be  made  perfect." 

"What  do  you  give  in  place  of  that  which  you  take 
away?"  This  is  a  question  which  is  proposed  to  Unita- 
rians over  and  over  and  over  again.  It  is  looked  upon  as 
an  unanswerable  criticism.  We  are  supposed  to  be  people 
who  tear  down,  but  do  not  build ;  people  who  take  away 
the  dear  hopes  and  traditional  faiths  of  the  past,  and  leave 
the  world  desolate,  without  God,  without  hope. 

Not  only  is  this  urged  against  us,  from  the  other  side, 
but  there  are  a  great  many  Unitarians,  possibly,  who  have 
not  thought  themselves  out  with  enough  clearness  to  know 
the  relation  between  the  present  conditions  of  human 


2O  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

thought  and  the  past ;  and  sometimes  even  they  may  look 
back  with  a  regretful  longing  towards  something  which  they 
have  outgrown,  and  left  behind. 

I  propose  this  morning  to  answer  this  question,  just  as 
simply,  as  frankly,  as  I  can ;  to  treat  it  with  all  reverence, 
with  all  seriousness,  and  try  to  make  clear  what  it  is  that 
the  world  has  lost  as  the  result  of  the  advances  of  modern 
knowledge,  and  what,  if  anything,  it  has  gained. 

But  while  I  stand  here,  on  the  threshold  of  my  theme, 
and  before  I  enter  upon  its  somewhat  fuller  discussion,  I 
wish  to  urge  upon  you  two  or  three  considerations. 

It  is  assumed,  by  the  people  who  ask  this  question,  that, 
if  we  do  take  away  anything,  we  are  under  obligation 
straightway  to  put  something  in  its  place.  I  wish  you  to 
consider  carefully  as  to  whether  this  position  is  sound. 
Suppose,  for  example,  that  I  should  discover  that  some 
belief  that  has  been  held  in  the  past  is  not  well  founded, 
not  true.  Must  I  say  nothing  about  it  because,  possibly,  I 
may  not  have  discovered  just  what  is  true  ? 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean :  Prince  Alphonso  of  Castile 
used  to  say,  as  he  studied  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  the 
universe,  that,  if  he  had  been  present  at  creation,  he  could 
have  suggested  a  good  many  very  important  improvements. 
In  other  words,  he  was  keen  enough  to  see  that  the  Ptole- 
maic theory  of  the  universe  was  not  a  good  working  theory. 
Must  he  keep  still  about  that  because,  forsooth,  he  was  not 
able  to  establish  another  theory  of  the  universe  in  its  place  ? 

Do  you  not  see  that  the  criticism,  the  testing  of  positions 
which  are  held,  are  the  primary  steps  in  the  direction  of 
finding  some  larger  and  grander  truth,  provided  these  posi- 
tions are  not  adequate  and  do  not  hold  ? 

The  Rev.  Dr.  George  A.  Gordon,  of  the  historic  Old  South 


What  do  you,  give  for  what  you  take  away  f         21 

Church  in  Boston,  told  us,  in  an  address  which  he  gave  in 
Brooklyn  the  other  day,  that  Calvinism  was  dead;  that  it 
was  even  necessary  to  clear  the  face  of  the  earth  of  it,  in 
order  to  save  our  faith  in  God.  At  the  same  time  Dr. 
Gordon  said  frankly  that  he  had  no  other  as  complete  and 
finished  system  to  put  in  place  of  it.  Was  he  justified  in 
telling  the  truth  about  Calvinism  because  he  has  not  a 
ready-made  scheme  to  substitute  for  it  ? 

I  wish  you  to  note  that  I  do  not  concede  for  an  instant 
that  I  must  not  tell  the  truth  about  anything  that  I  perceive 
because  I  have  not  a  ready-made  theory  of  some  kind  to 
put  in  the  place  of  that  which  is  taken  away.  It  is  my 
business  to  tell  what  seems  to  me  true  in  all  reverence,  seri- 
ousness, earnestness  and  love,  and  trust  the  consequences 
to  God. 

In  the  next  place,  another  consideration.  I  have  been 
talking  as  though  I  conceded  that  Unitarians,  or  that  I 
myself,  sometimes  take  away  things,  beliefs.  Now  I  wish 
to  ask  you  who  it  is  that  takes  away  beliefs.  Has  Unitari- 
anism  ever  taken  away  any  faith  or  hope  or  trust  from  the 
world  ?  Has  anybody  ever  done  it  ? 

If  we  pit  ourselves  against  one  of  God's  eternal  truths,  is 
that  truth  going  to  suffer  ?  Rather  shall  we  not  beat  our- 
selves to  pieces  against  God's  adamant  ?  If  a  thing  is  true, 
nobody  is  going  to  take  it  away  from  the  world ;  for  nobody 
has  the  power  to  uproot  or  destroy  a  divine  truth. 

Who  is  it,  then,  that  takes  these  beliefs  away  ?  Is  it  not 
just  this  ?  Does  it  not  mean  that  men  have  discovered  that 
what  they  supposed  to  be  true  is  not  true,  and  it  is  the  old 
belief  that  passes  away  in  the  presence  of  a  larger  and 
clearer  light  ?  Is  not  that  the  process  ? 

When    Magellan,    for   instance,    demonstrated    that    this 


22  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

planet  of  ours  was  round  by  circumnavigating  it,  the  ship 
returning  to  the  port  from  which  it  started,  did  he  take 
away  the  old  flat  earth,  fixed  and  anchored,  immovable, 
around  which  the  sun  moved  ?  Why,  there  was  no  old,  flat 
and  anchored,  stationary  earth  to  take  away.  There  never 
had  been.  All  Magellan  did  was  to  demonstrate  a  new, 
higher,  grander  truth.  He  took  away  a  misconception  from 
the  minds  of  ignorant  and  uneducated  people,  and  helped 
put  one  of  God's  grand,  luminous  truths  in  the  place  of  it. 
That  is  all  he  did. 

It  is  modern  intelligence,  increasing  knowledge,  larger, 
clearer  light  that  takes  away  old  beliefs.  But,  if  these  old 
beliefs  are  not  true,  it  simply  means  that  we  are  discovering 
what  is  true ;  that  is,  having  a  clearer  view  and  vision  of 
God's  ways  and  methods  of  governing  the  world. 

I  wish  you  to  note,  then,  in  this  second  place,  that  Uni- 
tarianism  does  not  take  away  anything. 

One  third  consideration :  Suppose  we  did.  Suppose  we 
took  away  belief  in  the  existence  of  God.  Suppose  we  took 
away  belief  in  man  as  a  soul,  leaving  him  simply  an  animal. 
Suppose  we  took  away  faith  in  continued  existence  after 
death.  Suppose  we  had  the  power  to  sweep  all  of  these 
grand  beliefs  out  of  the  human  mind.  Then  what  ? 

If  I  had  my  choice,  I  would  do  it  gladly,  with  tearful  grat- 
itude, rather  than  keep  the  old  beliefs  of  the  last  two  thou- 
sand years. 

The  late  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  in  a  review  article  pub- 
lished not  long  before  his  death,  said  frankly  this  which 
I  am  saying  now,  and  which  I  had  said  a  good  many  times 
before  Mr.  Beecher's  article  was  written, —  that  no  belief  at 
all  is  infinitely,  unspeakably  better  than  those  horrible  be- 
liefs which  have  dominated  and  darkened  the  world. 


What  do  you  give  for  what  you  take  away  ?         23 

I  would  rather  believe  in  no  God  than  in  a  bad  God, 
such  as  he  has  been  painted.  And,  if  I  had  my  choice  of 
the  future,  what  would  it  be?  I  have,  I  trust,  just  over 
there,  father,  mother,  two  brothers,  numberless  dear  ones; 
and  I  hope  to  see  them  with  a  hope  dearer  than  any  other 
which  I  cherish.  But,  if  I  were  standing  on  the  threshold 
of  heaven  itself,  and  these  loved  ones  were  beckoning  me 
to  come  in,  and  I  had  the  choice  between  an  eternity  of 
felicity  in  their  presence  and  eternal  sleep,  I  would  take  the 
sleep  rather  than  take  this  endless  joy  at  the  cost  of  the  un- 
ceasing and  unrelieved  torment  of  the  meanest  soul  that  ever 
lived.  And  I  would  have  no  great  respect  for  any  man  who 
would  not.  I  would  not  care  to  purchase  my  joy  at  the 
price  of  endless  pangs,  the  ascending  smoke  of  torment,  the 
wail  going  up  to  the  sweet  heavens  forever  and  ever  and 
ever. 

So,  even  if  it  were  a  choice  between  no  belief  at  all  and 
the  old  beliefs,  the  darkness  would  be  light  to  me ;  and  I 
would  embrace  it  with  joy  rather  than  take  the  selfish  felic- 
ity of  those  men  who  estimate  it  as  a  part  of  their  future 
occupation  to  be  leaning  over  the  battlements  of  heaven  and 
witnessing  the  torture  of  the  damned.  This,  though  sound- 
ing so  terrible  to  us  now,  is  good  old  Christian  doctrine, 
which  has  often  been  avowed.  Thank  God  we  are  out- 
growing it. 

These,  then,  for  preliminary  considerations. 

Now  let  me  raise  the  question  as  to  what  has  been  taken 
away.  You  remember  I  said  that  I  have  taken  nothing 
away,  Unitarianism  has  taken  nothing  away.  But  the  ad- 
vance of  modern  knowledge,  the  larger,  clearer  revelation 
of  God,  has  taken  away  no  end  of  things.  What  are  they  ? 

Let   me   make  two  very  brief  statements  right  here.     I 


24  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

am  in  the  position,  this  morning,  of  appearing  to  repeat  my- 
self ;  that  is,  I  must  go  over  a  good  many  points  that  I  have 
made  from  this  platform  before.  But  please  understand 
that  it  is  not  on  account  of  lapse  of  memory  on  my  part.  I 
am  doing  it  with  a  distinct  end  in  view,  which  can  only  be 
attained  by  these  steps. 

In  the  next  place,  my  treatment  has  so  much  ground  to 
cover  that  what  I  say  will  appear  somewhat  in  the  nature 
of  a  catalogue ;  but  I  see  no  other  way  in  which  to  make 
the  definite  statement  I  wish  to  lay  before  you.  I  am  going 
to  catalogue,  first,  a  lot  of  the  things  that  modern  knowledge 
has  taken  away.  Then  I  am  going  to  tell  you  some  of  the 
things  that  modern  knowledge  is  putting  in  place  of  what 
it  has  removed. 

In  the  first  place,  the  old  universe  is  taken  away;  that 
is,  that  little  tiny  play-house  affair,  not  so  large  as  our  solar 
system,  which  in  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  God  is 
reported  to  have  made  as  a  carpenter  working  from  outside 
makes  a  house,  inside  of  six  days.  That  little  universe, 
that  is,  the  story  of  creation  as  told  in  the  early  chapters  of 
Genesis,  is  absolutely  gone.  I  shall  tell  you  pretty  soon 
what  has  taken  the  place  of  it. 

Secondly,  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  God  of 
most  of  the  creeds  has  been  taken  away, —  that  God  who 
was  jealous,  who  was  partial,  who  was  angry ;  who  built  a 
little  world,  and  called  it  good,  and  then  inside  of  a  few  days 
saw  it  slip  out  of  his  control  into  the  hands  of  the  devil,  either 
because  he  could  not  help  it  or  did  not  wish  to ;  who 
watched  this  world  develop  for  a  little  while,  and  then, 
because  it  did  not  go  as  he  wanted  it  to,  had  to  drown  it, 
and  start  over  again ;  the  God  who  in  the  Old  Testament 
told  the  people  that  slavery  was  right,  provided  they  did  not 


Wliat  do  you  give  for  what  you  take  aivay  ?         25 

enslave  the  members  of  their  own  nation,  but  only  those 
outside  of  it;  the  God  who  indorsed  polygamy,  telling  a 
man  that  he  was  at  liberty  to  have  just  as  many  wives  as  he 
wanted  and  could  obtain,  and  that  he  was  free  to  dispose 
of  them  by  simply  giving  them  a  little  notice  and  telling 
them  to  quit ;  the  God  who  indorsed  hypocrisy  and  lying 
on  the  part  of  his  people  ;  the  God  who  sent  a  little  light 
on  one  little  people  along  one  edge  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  left  all  the  rest  of  the  world  in  darkness ;  the  God 
who  is  to  damn  all  of  these  people  who  were  left  in  darkness 
because  they  did  not  know  that  of  which  they  never  had 
any  chance  to  hear ;  the  God  who  is  to  cast  all  his 
enemies  into  the  pit,  trampling  them  down,  as  Edwards 
pictures  so  horribly  to  us,  in  his  hate  for  ever  and  ever. 

This  God  has  been  taken  away. 

In  the  third  place,  the  story  of  Eden,  the  creation  of  man 
and  then  immediately  the  fall  of  man  and  the  resulting 
doctrine  of  total  depravity, —  this  has  been  taken  away. 
That  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  then,  inside 
of  a  few  days,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Power  of  Evil,  and 
that  since  that  day  he  has  been  the  legitimate  subject 
here  on  this  earth  of  the  prince  of  this  world, —  that  is,  the 
devil, —  and  that  is  taught  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New, —  that  man  is  this  kind  of  a  being, —  this  is 
forever  gone.  There  is  no  rational,  intelligent,  free  belief 
in  it  left. 

Then  the  old  theory  of  the  Bible  has  been  taken  away, — 
that  theory  which  makes  it  a  book  without  error  or  flaw, 
and  makes  us  under  the  highest  obligation  to  receive  all  its 
teachings  as  the  veritable  word  of  God,  whether  they  seem  to 
us  hideous,  blasphemous,  immoral,  degrading,  or  not.  This 
is  gone. 


26  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Professor  Goldwin  Smith,  in  an  article  published  within  a 
year,  treats  the  belief,  the  continued  holding  to  this  old 
theory  about  the  Bible,  under  the  head  of  "  Christianity's 
Millstone."  He  writes  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  old 
belief ;  but  he  says,  if  Christianity  is  going  to  be  saved,  this 
millstone  must  be  taken  off  from  about  its  neck,  and  allowed 
to  sink  into  the  sea. 

If  we  hold  that  theory,  what  ?  Why,  then,  we  must  still 
believe  that,  in  order  to  help  on  the  slaughter  of  his  enemies 
on  the  part  of  a  barbarian  general,  God  stopped  the  whole 
machinery  of  the  universe  for  hours  until  he  got  through 
with  his  killing.  We  must  believe  the  literal  story  of  Jonah's 
being  swallowed  by  the  whale.  We  must  believe  no  end  of 
incredibilities ;  and  then,  if  we  dare  to  read  with  our  eyes 
open,  we  must  believe  immoral  things,  cruel  things,  about 
men  and  about  God, —  things  which  our  civilization  would  not 
endure,  were  it  not  for  the  power  of  tradition,  which  hallows 
that  which  used  to  be  believed  in  the  past. 

This  conception  of  the  Bible,  then,  is  gone. 

Then,  in  the  next  place,  the  blood  atonement  is  gone. 
What  did  that  mean  to  the  world?  It  meant  that  the  eter- 
nal Father  either  would  not  or  could  not  forgive  and  receive 
back  to  his  heart  his  own  erring,  mistaken,  wandering  chil- 
dren unless  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  was  slaughtered, 
and  we,  as  the  old  awful  hymn  has  it,  were  plunged  beneath 
this  fountain  of  blood !  Revolting,  terrible,  if  you  stop  to 
think  of  it  for  one  reasoning  moment, —  that  God  cannot 
forgive  unless  he  takes  agony  out  of  somebody  equal  to 
that  from  which  he  releases  his  own  children ! 

That,  though  embodied  still  in  all  the  creeds,  has  been 
taken  away.  It  is  gone,  like  a  long,  hideous  dream  of  dark- 
ness. 


What  do  you  give  for  what  you  take  away  ?         27 

Belief  in  the  devil  has  been  taken  away.  What  does  that 
mean  ?  It  means  that  Christendom  has  held  and  taught 
for  nearly  two  thousand  years  that  God  is  not  really  King  of 
the  universe ;  that  he  holds  only  a  divided  power,  and  that 
here  thousands  on  thousands  of  years  go  by,  and  the  devil 
controls  the  destiny  of  this  world,  and  ruins  right  and  left 
millions  on  millions  of  human  souls,  and  that  God  either 
cannot  help  it  or  does  not  wish  to,  one  of  the  two.  This 
belief  is  taken  away. 

And  then,  lastly,  that  which  I  have  touched  on  by  im- 
plication already,  the  belief  in  endless  punishment  is  taken 
away.  Are  you  sorry  ?  Does  anybody  wish  something  put 
in  the  place  of  this  ?  The  belief  that  all  those  except  the 
elect,  church  members,  those  who  have  been  through  a 
special  process  called  conversion, —  these,  including  all  the 
millions  on  millions  outside  of  Christendom  and  from  the 
beginning  until  to-day,  have  gone  down  to  the  flame  that  is 
never  quenched,  the  worm  that  never  dies,  to  linger  on  in 
useless  torture  forever  and  ever  ?  Simply  a  monument  of 
what  is  monstrously  called  the  justice  of  God  !  This  is  gone. 

Now,  friends,  just  ask  yourselves,  as  you  go  home,  as  you 
think  over  what  I  have  said  this  morning,  as  to  whether 
there  is  anything  else  lost. 

Is  there  anything  of  value  taken  away  ?  Let  me  run  over 
now  in  parallel  fashion  another  catalogue  to  place  opposite 
this  one,  so  that  we  may  see  as  to  what  has  been  our  loss 
and  as  to  whether  there  has  been  any  gain. 

In  the  place  of  the  little,  petty  universe  of  Hebrew 
dream,  what  have  we  now  ?  This  magnificent  revelation  of 
the  Copernican  students  ;  a  universe  infinite  in  its  reach  and 
in  its  grandeur  ;  a  universe  fit  at  last  to  be  the  home  of  an 
infinite  God ;  a  universe  grand  enough  to  clothe  him  and 


28  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

express  him,  to  manifest  and  reveal  him ;  a  universe 
•boundless ;  a  universe  that  has  grown  through  the  ages  and 
is  growing  still,  and  is  to  unfold  more  and  more  of  the 
•divine  beauty  and  glory  forevermore. 

Is  there  any  loss  in  this  exchange  ? 

Now  as  to  God.  I  have  pictured  to  you,  in  very  bald 
•outline,  some  of  the  conceptions  of  God  that  have  been 
held  in  the  past.  What  is  our  God  to-day  ?  The  heart,  the 
life,  the  soul,  of  this  infinite  universe  ;  justice  that  means 
justice ;  power  that  means  power ;  love  that  surpasses  all 
our  imagination  of  love ;  a  God  who  is  eternal  goodness ; 
who  from  the  beginning  has  folded  his  child  man  to  his 
heart,  whispering  all  of  truth  that  he  could  understand, 
breathing  into  him  all  of  life  that  he  could  contain,  inspir- 
ing him  with  all  love  and  tenderness  that  he  could  appre- 
ciate or  employ,  and  so,  in  this  way,  leading  him  and 
guiding  him  through  the  ages,  year  by  year  and  century  by 
century,  still  to  something  better  and  finer  and  higher ; 
a  God,  not  off  somewhere  in  the  heavens,  to  whom  we  must 
send  a  messenger ;  not  a  God  separated  from  us  by  some 
great  gulf  that  we  must  bridge  by  some  supposed  atone- 
ment ;  a  God  nearer  to  us  than  our  breath ;  a  God  who  hears 
the  whisper  of  our  want,  who  understands  the  dawning  wish 
or  aspiration  before  it  takes  form  or  shape  ;  a  God  who 
loves  us  better  than  we  love  ourselves  or  love  those  who 
are  dearest  to  us ;  a  God  who  knows  better  what  we  need 
than  we  know  ourselves,  and  is  more  ready  to  give  us 
than  fathers  are  to  give  good  gifts  to  their  children. 

Is  there  any  loss  here  ? 

In  the  third  place,  the  new  man  that  has  come  into 
modern  thought.  Not  the  broken  fragments  of  a  perfect 
Adam ;  not  a  man  so  crippled  intellectually  that,  as  they 


What  do  you  give  for  what  you  take  away  ?         29 

have  been  telling  us  for  centuries,  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  find  the  truth,  or  to  know  it  when  he  did  find  it ;  not  a 
being  so  depraved,  morally,  that  he  never  desires  any  good, 
and  never  loves  anything  which  is  sweet  and  fine ;  a  being 
totally  depraved,  a  being  who,  as  one  passage  in  the  Old 
Testament  tells  us,  is  so  corrupt  his  very  prayer  is  a  sin ; 
conceived,  born,  in  evil,  and  all  his  thoughts  tainted,  and 
drifting  towards  that  which  is  wicked.  Not  this  kind  of  a 
man.  A  man  who  has  been  on  the  planet  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years,  who  has  been  learning  by  experience, 
who  has  been  animal,  who  has  been  cruel,  but  who  at 
every  step  has  been  trying  to  find  the  light,  has  been 
becoming  a  little  truer  and  better ;  a  being  who  has  evolved 
all  that  is  sweetest  and  finest  in  the  history  of  the  world ; 
who  has  made  no  end  of  mistakes,  who  has  committed  no 
end  of  crimes,  but  who  has  learned  through  these  processes, 
and  at  last  has  given  us  some  specimens  of  what  is  possible 
by  way  of  development  in  Abraham  and  Moses  and  Elijah 
and  David  and  Isaiah,  and  a  long  line  of  prophets  and 
seers  of  the  Old  Testament  time  ;  not  perfect,  but  magnifi- 
cent types  of  actual  men ;  who  has  developed  in  other 
nations  such  men  as  Gautama,  the  heroes  and  teachers  of 
China,  like  Confucius ;  then  Aristotle,  Plato,  Socrates ;  the 
noble  men  of  Rome  ;  who  has  given  us  in  the  modern  world 
the  great  poets,  the  great  discoverers,  the  great  philan- 
thropists ;  those  devoted  to  the  highest,  sweetest  things ; 
musicians  and  artists ;  who  has  given  us  Shakspere,  who 
has  given  us,  crowning  them  all,  as  I  believe,  by  the  moral 
beauty  and  grandeur  of  his  love,  the  Nazarene,  Jesus,  our 
elder  brother,  Son  of  God,  and  helper  of  his  fellow-man  ; 
this  humanity  that  has  never  fallen ;  that  has  been  climb- 
ing up  from  the  beginning,  and  not  sinking  down. 
Is  there  any  loss  here  ? 


30  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Then  let  us  see  what  kind  of  a  Bible  modern  science  and 
modern  discovery  and  modern  scholarship  and  modern  life 
have  given  us. 

Our  Bible  is  the  sifted  truth  of  the  ages.  There  is  not  a 
passage  in  it  or  a  line  for  which  we  need  apologize.  There  is 
nothing  incredible  in  it,  except  as  it  is  incredibly  sweet  and 
good  and  true.  It  is  the  truth  that  has  come  to  men  in  all 
ages,  no  matter  spoken  by  whose  lips,  no  matter  written  by 
what  pen,  no  matter  wrought  out  under  what  conditions  or 
in  whatever  civilization  or  under  whatever  sky. 

All  that  is  true  and  sweet  and  fine  is  a  part  of  God's 
revelation  of  himself  to  his  children,  and  makes  up  our 
Bible,  which  is  not  all  written  yet.  Every  new  truth  that 
shall  be  discovered  in  the  future  will  make  a  new  line  or  a 
new  paragraph  or  a  new  chapter.  God  has  been  writing  it 
on  the  rocks,  in  the  stars,  in  the  hearts,  on  the  brains  of 
his  children  ;  and  his  hand  does  not  slacken.  He  is  not 
tired :  he  is  writing  still.  He  will  write  to-morrow,  and  next 
year,  and  throughout  all  the  coming  time.  This  is  the  Bible. 

We  believe,  for  example,  that  the  saying  of  the  old 
Egyptian,  "  God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes," 
is  just  as  divine  and  sweet  as  when  said  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  believe  that  the  Golden  Rule  is  just  as  golden 
when  uttered  by  Confucius  hundreds  of  years  before  Jesus 
as  it  was  afterwards.  We  believe  that  the  saying  about 
two  commandments  being  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  law 
was  just  as  holy  when  Hillel  spake  them  as  when  Jesus 
uttered  them  after  his  time.  All  truth  is  divine,  and  part  of 
God's  divine  revelation  to  his  children. 

Here  is  our  Bible,  then.  Now  let  me  speak  about  Jesus, 
and  see  if  our  thought  is  less  precious  than  the  old. 

In  my  old  days,  when  I  preached  in  the  orthodox  church, 


What  do  yon  give  for  what  you  take  away  ?         31 

Jesus  was  never  half  so  dear,  so  helpful  to  me,  as  he  is  now. 
If  I  thought  of  him  at  all,  I  was  obliged  to  think  of  him  as 
somehow  a  second  God,  who  stood  between  me  and  the 
first  one,  and  through  whom  I  hoped  deliverance  from  the 
law  and  the  justice  of  the  first.  I  had  to  think  of  him  as  a 
part  of  a  scheme  that  seemed  to  me  unjust  and  cruel,  involv- 
ing the  torture  of  some  and  the  loss  of  most  of  the  race. 
You  cannot  pick  the  old-time  Jesus  out  of  that  scheme  of 
which  he  is  a  part.  I  could  not  love  him  then  as  I  love 
him  now.  I  could  not  think  of  him  as  an  example  to  fol- 
low ;  for  how  can  one  take  the  Infinite  for  an  example  ? 
How  can  one  follow  the  absolutely  Perfect  except  afar  off  ? 

But  now  I  think  of  Jesus  and  his  cross  as  the  most 
natural  and  at  the  same  time  the  divinest  thing  in  the  his- 
tory of  man.  Nothing  outside  of  the  regular  divine  order  in 
it.  Jesus  reveals  to  me  to-day  the  humanness  of  God  and 
the  divineness  of  man.  And  he  takes  his  place  in  the  long 
line  of  the  world's  redeemers,  those  who  have  wrought 
atonement, —  how?  Through  faithfulness  even  unto  death. 

The  way  we  work  out  the  atonement  of  the  world  —  that  is, 
the  reconciliation  of  the  world  to  God  —  is  by  being  true  to 
the  vision  of  the  truth  as  it  comes  to  us,  no  matter  by  the 
pathway  of  what  suffering, —  true  as  Jesus  was  true,  true 
even  when  he  thought  his  Father  had  forsaken  him. 

Do  you  know,  friends,  I  think  that  is  the  grandest  thing 
in  the  world.  He  verily  believed  that  God  had  forsaken 
him ;  and  yet  he  held  fast  to  his  trust,  to  his  truth,  to  his 
faithfulness,  even  when  swooning  away  into  the  unconscious- 
ness of  death. 

There  is  faith,  and  there  is  faithfulness  ;  and  he  shares 
this  with  thousands  of  others.  There  are  thousands  of  men 
who  have  suffered  more  than  Jesus  did  dying  for  his  own 


32  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

truth;  thousands  of  martyrs  who,  with  his  name  on  their 
lips,  have  gone  through  greater  torture  than  he  did.  All 
these,  whoever  has  been  faithful,  whoever  has  suffered  for 
the  right,  whoever  has  been  true,  has  helped  to  work  out  the 
atonement,  the  reconciliation,  of  the  world  with  God,  show- 
ing the  beauty  of  truth  and  bringing  men  into  that  admira- 
tion of  it  that  helps  them  to  come  into  accord  with  the 
divine  life. 

Then  one  more  point.  Instead  of  the  wail  of  the  damned 
that  is  never,  through  all  eternity,  for  one  moment  hushed 
in  silence,  we  place  the  song  of  the  redeemed,  an  eternal 
hope  for  every  child  born  of  the  race.  We  do  not  believe 
it  is  possible  for  a  human  soul  ultimately  to  be  lost.  Why  ? 
Because  we  believe  in  God.  God  either  can  save  all  souls 
or  he  cannot.  If  he  can  and  will  not,  then  he  is  not  God. 
If  he  would  and  cannot,  then  he  is  not  God.  Let  us  rever- 
ently say  it:  he  is  under  an  infinite  obligation  to  his  own 
self,  to  his  own  righteousness,  to  his  own  truth,  his  own 
power,  his  own  love,  his  own  character,  to  see  to  it  that  all 
souls,  some  time,  are  reconciled  to  him. 

This  does  not  mean  a  poor,  cheap,  an  easy  salvation.  It 
means  that  every  broken  law  must  have  its  consequences  so 
long  as  it  remains  broken.  It  means  that  in  this  world  and 
through  all  worlds  the  law-breaker  is  to  be  followed  by  the 
natural  and  necessary  results  of  his  thoughts,  of  his  words, 
of  his  deeds ;  but  it  means  that  in  this  punishment  the  pain 
is  a  part  of  the  divine  love.  For  the  love  of  God  makes  it 
absolutely  necessary  that  the  object  of  that  love  shall  be 
delivered  from  sin  and  wrong,  and  brought  into  reconciliation 
with  himself ;  and  the  pain,  the  necessary  results  of  wrong- 
doing, are  a  part  of  the  divine  tenderness,  a  part  of  the 
divine  faithfulness,  a  part  of  the  divine  love. 


What  do  you  give  for  what  you  take  away  ?          33 

So  we  believe  that  through  darkness  or  through  light, 
through  joy  or  through  sorrow,  some  time,  somewhere, 
every  child  of  God  shall  be  brought  into  his  presence, 
ready  to  sing  the  song  of  peace  and  joy  and  reconciled  love. 

Now,  friends,  I  have  gone  over  all  the  main  points  of  the 
theology  of  our  question.  I  have  told  you  what  I  think  the 
results  of  modern  study  have  taken  away.  I  have  indicated 
to  you  what  I  believe  is  to  come  and  take  the  place  of  these 
things  that  are  absolutely  gone.  Ask  yourselves  seriously,  — 
if  you  are  not  one  of  us,  —  is  there  a  single  one  of  these 
things  that  modern  investigation  is  threatening  that  you 
really  care  to  keep  ?  If  you  could  choose  between  the  two 
systems  and  have  your  choice  settle  the  validity  of  them, 
would  you  not  choose  the  second,  and  be  grateful  to  bid 
good-by  to  the  first  ? 

Remember,  however,  at  the  end  let  me  say,  as  I  did  at 
the  beginning,  that,  if  these  things  pass  away  and  the  other 
finer  things  come  in  their  places,  Unitarianism  is  not  to  be 
charged  by  its  enemies  with  destroying  the  old,  neither  is  it 
to  take  the  credit  on  the  part  of  its  friends  for  having 
created  all  the  new.  That  distinguishes  us  as  Unitarians 
from  any  other  form  of  faith  is  that  we  believe  in  the  living, 
loving,  leading  God  of  the  modern  world,  and  are  ready 
gladly  to  take  the  results  of  modern  investigation,  believing 
that  they  are  only  a  part  of  the  revelation  of  the  divine 
truth  and  the  Father's  will. 

We  accept  these  things,  stand  for  them,  proclaim  them ; 
but  we  did  not  create  them.  If  anything  is  gone  that  you 
did  not  like,  we  did  not  take  it  away.  If  anything  is  come 
that  you  do  like,  give  God  the  glory ;  and  let  us  share  with 
you  the  joy  and  praise. 


ARE   THERE   ANY   CREEDS   WHICH 

IT   IS   WICKED    FOR   US    TO 

QUESTION? 


ANY  body  of  people  whatsoever  has,  of  course,  an  un- 
doubted right  to  organize  on  the  basis  of  any  belief  or  prin- 
ciples which  it  may  happen  to  hold.  This,  always,  on  the 
supposition  that  those  principles  or  beliefs  are  not  antago- 
nistic to  human  welfare.  They  have  a  right  to  establish 
the  conditions  of  membership  and  limit  their  numbers  as 
much  as  they  please. 

For  example,  suppose  a  set  of  persons  chanced  to  hold 
the  belief  that  the  so-called  Shakspere  plays  were  written 
by  Bacon.  They  have  a  perfect  right  to  organize  a  society, 
and  to  say  that  nobody  shall  be  a  member  of  that  society 
unless  he  agrees  with  them  in  this  belief.  If  I  happen,  as  I 
do,  to  hold  some  other  conviction  about  the  matter,  I  have 
no  right  to  blame  them  because  they  do  not  wish  me  to 
be  a  member.  I  can  organize,  if  I  please,  another  society 
that  shall  have  for  its  cardinal  doctrinal  statement  the  be- 
lief that  Shakspere  was  the  author  of  these  plays.  There 
is  no  need  that  I  should  quarrel  with  people  holding  these 
other  ideas. 

Or,  if  I  am  a  laboring  man, —  in  the  technical  sense  of  the 
word  that  is  commonly  used  to-day, —  I  have  a  right  to  or- 
ganize a  society  devoted  to  the  furtherance  of  the  eight- 
hour  movement,  or  any  other  specific  end  or  aim  which 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  35 

seems  to  me  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  society  as  organ- 
ized in  the  modern  world. 

All  this  we  concede  at  the  outset.  People  have  a  perfect 
right  to  organize  on  the  basis  of  their  particular  beliefs,  and 
to  keep  out  of  their  organization  those  persons  who  do  not 
happen  to  agree  with  them.  But, —  and  here  is  a  most 
important  consideration, —  if  these  beliefs  seem  to  us  who 
are  outside  to  be  vital ;  if  they  appear  to  concern  us, 
to  touch  our  well-being,  our  future  hopes, —  then  we  cer- 
tainly have  a  right  to  study  those  beliefs,  to  criticise  them, 
to  put  them  to  the  test  to  see  whether  they  are  well  founded, 
whether  they  have  any  adequate  basis  of  support. 

And,  still  further,  if  the  people  holding  a  certain  set  of 
beliefs  tell  us  that  they  are  inspired  of  God,  that  they  are 
spokesmen  for  God,  that  they  have  had  committed  to  them  a 
certain  definite  deposit  of  faith  for  the  benefit  of  the  world ; 
if  they  tell  us  that,  unless  we  agree  with  them,  unless  we 
accept  the  conditions  and  come  into  their  organization,  then 
we  are  opposed  to  God,  are  endangering  our  own  souls, 
and  are  enemies  of  the  human  race, — then  it  becomes  not 
merely  our  right  to  look  into  these  matters :  does  it  not  be- 
come our  most  solemn  duty  ?  Are  we  not  under  the  highest 
of  all  obligations  to  decide  for  ourselves  one  way  or  the 
other  as  to  whether  these  claims  are  valid  ?  For,  if  they  are, 
then  there  is  nothing  so  important  for  us  as  that  we  should 
accept  them  and  live  in  accordance  with  them,  join  the 
societies  that  are  organized  on  them  as  a  basis,  do  our 
utmost  to  extend  their  acceptance  throughout  the  world. 

If  they  are  not  valid,  then  we  ought  to  do  our  very  best 
to  prove  this  also,  and  help  those  who  are  in  bondage  to 
these  false  ideas  to  attain  their  liberty,  in  order  that  they 
may  join  with  us  in  finding  out  that  which  is  true,  in  order 


36  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

that  together  we  may  work  for  the  discovery  of  the  will  of 
God,  and  that  we  may  co-operate  in  helping  the  world  to 
find  and  obey  that  will. 

You  would  suppose  from  the  ordinary  assumption  of  those 
who  hold  the  old  creeds,  and  who  have  organized  their 
churches  on  these  creeds,  as  foundation  stones,  that  there 
had  been  at  the  outset  a  clear,  a  definite  revelation  of  truth, 
that  it  had  been  unquestioned,  that  it  had  come  with  cre- 
dentials enough  to  satisfy  the  world  that  the  speakers  spoke 
by  authority,  and  that  the  matter  had  from  the  beginning 
been  well  understood. 

It  is  assumed  that  we  who  do  not  hold  these  ideas  are 
wilfully  wrong,  that  we  are  not  inclined  to  accept  the  divine 
truth,  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  hardness  and  wickedness 
of  our  hearts,  and  that  we  prefer  evil  rather  than  good.  We 
are  told  that  we  might  know,  if  we  would,  that  the  matter  is 
definite,  and  has  been  perfectly  well  settled  from  the  begin- 
ning. This,  I  say,  is  the  assumption. 

Let  us  now,  then,  investigate  the  matter  for  a  little  while, 
just  as  calmly,  just  as  simply,  just  as  dispassionately  as  we 
are  able. 

I  confess  to  you,  at  the  outset,  that  I  do  not  like  such 
a  task  as  to-day  seems  to  be  imposed  upon  me.  I  do  not 
like  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  seeming  to  criticise  my  fel- 
low-citizens, my  friends,  and  neighbors  ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  more  than  a  task,  that  it  is  a  duty,  and  one  that  I 
cannot  readily  escape.  I  mean  as  little  as  possible  even  to 
seem  to  criticise  people ;  but  I  must  look  into  the  foun- 
dations of  their  beliefs,  and  see  whether  they  are  valid, 
whether  there  is  any  reason  why  we  should  feel  ourselves 
compelled  to-day  to  accept  them. 

Let  us  take  our  place,  then,  at  the  outset  of  Christianity 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  37 

by  the  side  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles.  Now  let  us  note  one 
strange  fact.  For  the  first  two  or  three  hundred  years  the 
belief  of  the  Church  was  chaotic,  unconfirmed,  unsettled. 
There  was  dispute  and  discussion  of  the  most  earnest  and 
most  bitter  kind  concerning  what  are  regarded  to-day  as  the 
very  fundamentals  of  the  Christian  faith. 

This  would  hardly  seem  possible,  would  it,  if  Jesus  had 
made  himself  perfectly  clear  and  explicit  in  regard  to  these 
matters  ?  If  Jesus  were  really  God,  and  if  he  came  down 
on  to  this  earth  for  the  one  express  purpose  of  telling  hu- 
manity what  kind  of  moral  and  spiritual  condition  it  was  in, 
just  what  it  needed  in  order  to  be  saved,  would  you  not  sup- 
pose that  he  would  have  been  so  clear  that  there  could  have 
been  no  honest  question  about  it  ? 

If,  for  example,  Jesus  knew  he  was  God,  ought  not  he  to 
have  told  it  so  plainly  that  no  honest  man  could  go  astray 
about  it?  If  he  knew  that  the  human  race  fell  in  Adam 
and  was  in  a  condition  of  loss  under  the  general  wrath  and 
curse  of  God,  ought  not  he  to  have  said  something  about 
Adam,  something  about  the  Garden  of  Eden,  something 
about  the  fall  ?  Yet  it  never  appears  anywhere  that  he  did. 
If  he  knew  it  was  absolutely  necessary  for  us  to  hold  certain 
ideas  about  the  Bible,  ought  not  he  to  have  told  us  ?  If  he 
knew  that  the  great  majority  of  the  human  race  was  going 
to  endless  and  hopeless  torment  in  the  future  unless  they 
held  certain  beliefs,  ought  not  he  to  have  made  it  plain  ? 

But  take  that  which  I  read  as  a  part  of  our  Scripture  les- 
son this  morning, —  that  magnificent  picture  of  the  judg- 
ment scene,  where  he  divides  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand 
and  the  goats  on  his  left.  Who  are  the  sheep,  and  who  are 
the  goats  ?  Those  who  are  to  be  admitted  with  glad  wel- 
come to  the  presence  of  the  Father  are  simply  those  that 


38  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

have  been  morally  good  ;  and  those  who  are  told  they  must 
be  shut  out  are  simply  those  who  have  been  morally  bad. 
There  is  no  hint  of  the  necessity  of  any  belief  at  all. 
Nothing  said  about  any  Bible,  about  any  Trinity,  about  any 
faith,  about  anything  that  is  supposed  to  be  essential  as  a 
condition  of  salvation, —  not  a  word.  Only  the  good  re- 
ceive the  welcome,  and  the  bad  are  shut  out.  That  is  all. 

If  this  is  not  true,  ought  he  not  to  have  told  us  some- 
thing about  it,  and  made  it  perfectly  clear  ? 

Now  what  was  the  condition  of  popular  belief  ?  Let  me 
illustrate  it  by  one  or  two  points.  Origen,  for  example,  one 
of  the  most  famous  of  the  Church  Fathers,  believed  and 
preached  the  pre-existence  of  the  human  soul  and  universal 
salvation.  Now,  if  Jesus  said  anything  contrary  to  this 
belief  of  universal  salvation,  either  Origen  did  not  know 
anything  about  it  or  he  did  not  regard  it  as  of  any  author- 
ity,—  one  or  the  other.  We  cannot  conceive  of  his  holding 
a  position  of  this  sort  if  he  had  known  that  Jesus  had  pro- 
nounced explicitly  to  the  contrary. 

Take  another  illustration.  Two  weeks  ago  this  morning  I 
had  occasion  to  quote  to  you  a  few  words  from  another  of 
the  old  Church  Fathers,  Justin  Martyr,  who  taught  explicitly 
that  Jesus  was  not  the  equal  of  the  Father,  but  a  subordinate 
and  created  being.  Now,  if  Jesus  had  clearly  taught  any- 
thing approaching  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is  it  conceiv- 
able that  Justin  Martyr  had  not  heard  of  it,  or,  having 
heard  of  it,  had  not  accepted  it  ? 

At  any  rate,  if  these  things  were  true  and  important,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  Church  Fathers,  the  very  founders  of 
Christianity,  should  have  been  all  at  sea  in  regard  to  them, 
should  have  held  divergent  opinions,  and  should  have  been 
discussing  these  questions  one  way  and  the  other  for  three 
hundred  years. 


May  we  question  the  Creeds?  39 

Let  us  now  see  what  we  have  as  a  basis  for  belief  in  re- 
gard  to  what  Jesus  really  did  say.  The  Gospels  grew  up  in 
a  time  when  there  was  no  shorthand  writing,  no  reporting. 
Jesus  does  not  say  one  word  about  having  any  record  made 
of  his  teaching,  does  not  seem  to  have  considered  it  of  the 
slightest  importance.  He  simply  talks  and  converses  as 
friend  with  friend,  preaches  to  the  crowds  wherever  they 
gather,  but  says  nothing  whatever  about  founding  any  sys- 
tem of  doctrine,  says  nothing  about  the  importance  of  hav- 
ing a  statement  of  his  doctrine  kept. 

The  Gospels,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did  not  come  into  their 
present  shape  for  many  years  after  his  death.  How  long  ? 
The  critics  are  not  at  one  in  regard  to  it.  A  book  has  re- 
cently been  translated  from  the  German,  by  a  professor  in 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  this  State,  which  says 
that  not  a  single  one  of  the  Gospels  was  known  in  its  present 
shape  until  between  the  years  150  and  200  A.D.  All  scholars 
do  not  accept  this ;  but  they  are  all  at  one  in  the  statement 
that  it  was  a  great  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus  before 
they  came  into  the  shape  in  which  we  know  them  to-day. 

There  was,  then,  no  clear  record  at  the  first  in  regard  to 
these  matters  of  belief ;  and,  as  I  said  a  moment  ago,  for  the 
first  two  or  three  hundred  years  the  condition  of  the  Church 
was  chaotic.  It  was  a  long  time  coming  to  a  consciousness 
of  itself. 

Now  let  us  note  the  time  when  a  few  of  the  creeds  were 
formed,  and  what  are  some  of  their  characteristics. 

Although  the  Apostles'  Creed  would  seem  to  take  us  back 
to  the  apostles,  we  are  not  to  deal  with  that  first,  because  it 
was  not  the  first  one  of  the  creeds  to  come  into  its  present 
shape. 

The  oldest    creed  that  we  have   to-day  is  the   Nicene. 


4O  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

When  was  that  formed  ?  It  was  agreed  upon  at  the  Council 
of  Nicaea,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century.  Now 
note,  if  you  please,  what  influences  shaped  and  determined 
it.  Did  those  who  proposed  that  this  particular  clause  or 
that  should  enter  into  it  have  any  proof  of  their  belief? 
Did  they  even  claim  to  have  ?  Why,  the  idea  of  evidence, 
the  thought  of  proof,  was  absolutely  unknown  to  the  mind  of 
Christendom  at  that  time.  Nobody  thought  of  such  a  thing 
as  proposing  to  prove  that  this  or  that  or  the  other  was 
true. 

The  Nicene  Creed  came  into  existence  very  much,  indeed, 
as  does  the  platform  of  a  political  party  at  the  present  time. 
One  man  fought  for  this  proposition,  another  man  for  that 
one ;  and  at  last  it  was  a  sort  of  compromise  decided  by  a 
majority.  And  how  was  the  majority  reached?  Friends, 
there  were  bribes,  there  were  threats,  there  were  all  kinds 
of  intimidation,  there  were  blows,  there  was  wrangling  of 
every  kind,  there  was  banishment,  there  was  murder. 
There  has  not  been  a  political  platform  in  the  modern  world 
evolved  out  of  such  brutal,  conflicting,  anti-religious  con- 
ditions as  those  which  prevailed  before  and  in  connection 
with  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 

Anything  like  evidence  ?  Not  heard  of  or  thought  of. 
Anything  like  quiet  brooding  of  those  who  supposed  they 
were,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  receiving  divine 
and  sacred  truth  ?  The  farthest  possible  from  any  condi- 
tions that  could  be  suggested  by  such  a  thought. 

And  at  the  last,  though  undoubtedly  the  majority  of  the 
Church  at  that  time  was  Unitarian,  as  I  told  you  the  other 
day  it  was  the  decisive  influence  of  the  Emperor  Constan- 
tine  which  settled  the  controversy.  Thus  came  into  exist- 
ence in  the  fourth  century  the  oldest  of  the  church  creeds 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  41 

which  is  recognized  as  authoritative  in  the  Catholic,  the 
Anglican,  and  the  Episcopal  churches  of  the  present  time. 

And  this  Nicene  Creed,  if  I  had  time  to  go  into  it  and 
analyze  it,  I  could  show  you  contains  elements  which  no  in- 
telligent man  in  any  of  these  churches  thinks  of  believing  at 
the  present  time ;  and  yet  nobody  dares  suggest  a  change, 
or  the  bringing  it  into  accord  with  what  the  intelligence  of 
the  modern  world  knows  to  be  true. 

Let  us  pass  on,  and  consider  for  a  moment  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  so  called.  There  was  a  time  in  the  Church  when 
people  really  supposed  that  the  apostles  were  its  author. 
There  are  persons  to-day  who  have  not  discovered  the  con- 
trary. I  crossed  the  ocean  a  few  years  ago  when  on  board 
were  a  bishop  of  one  of  the  Western  States  and  a  young  can- 
didate for  orders  who  was  travelling  with  him  as  his  pupil. 
I  fell  into  conversation  with  this  young  man,  and  found  that 
he  really  believed  that  the  twelve  clauses  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed  were  manufactured  by  the  apostles  themselves.  He 
had  never  discovered  anything  to  the  contrary. 

A  still  more  astonishing  fact  came  to  my  knowledge  last 
year.  During  that  discussion  over  Ian  McLaren's  creed, 
in  which  so  many  people  were  interested  last  winter,  Chancel- 
lor McCracken,  of  the  University  of  New  York,  published  a 
letter,  in  which  he  referred  to  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  "  written 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago."  It  took  my  breath  away  when 
I  read  it.  I  wondered,  Could  the  chancellor  of  a  great 
University  possibly  be  ignorant  of  the  facts  ?  Would  he  state 
that  which  he  knew  was  not  true?  I  could  not  explain 
it  either  way.  I  was  compelled  to  think,  if  he  was 
thoughtless  and  careless  about  it,  that  he  had  no  business 
to  be  about  a  matter  of  such  importance.  But  he  said  the 
Apostles'  Creed  was  written  eighteen  hundred  years  ago. 


42  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Now  what  are  the  facts  ?  The  apostles  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  creed,  as  everybody  knows  to-day 
who  chooses  to  look  into  the  matter.  It  grew,  and  was  four 
or  five  hundred  years  in  growth, —  one  phrase  in  one  shape 
held  in  a  certain  part  of  the  Church,  another  phrase  in 
another  shape  held  in  another  part  of  the  Church,  people 
holding  nothing  so  sacred  about  it  but  that  they  were  at  per- 
fect liberty  to  change  it  and  add  to  it  and  take  away  from 
it,  until,  as  we  get  it  to-day,  it  appeared  for  the  first  time  in 
history  at  about  the  year  500.  And  yet  it  stands  in  the 
Church  to-day  claiming  to  be  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

And  this  Apostles'  Creed  —  if  it  were  a  part  of  the  pur- 
pose I  have  in  mind  this  morning  —  I  could  analyze,  and  find 
that  it  contains  elements  which  nobody  accepts  to-day  ;  and 
yet  nobody  dares  to  propose  touching  it,  such  is  the  rever- 
ence for  that  which  is  old.  So  much  more  reverence  does 
the  world  have  for  that  which  is  old  than  for  that  which  is 
true. 

If  you  approach  a  Churchman  in  regard  to  his  belief  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  he  will  say,  Of  course,  we  do  not 
believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body :  we  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  soul.  But  he  does  not  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  soul,  either. 

Let  me  make  two  statements  in  regard  to  this.  In  the 
first  place,  if  he  does  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  he  has  no  right  to  say  it,  because  the  House  of 
Bishops,  representing  the  whole  Church  of  the  United  States, 
in  an  authoritative  pastoral  letter  issued  within  three  years, 
declares  that  "  fixity  of  interpretation  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
creeds."  No  man,  then,  is  at  liberty  to  change  the  interpre- 
tation to  suit  himself. 

And  then,  again,  nobody,  as  I  say,  believes  in  the  resur- 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  43 

rection  of  the  soul.  Why  ?  Because  that  statement,  with 
the  authority  of  the  House  of  Bishops  that  nobody  has  any 
business  to  change  or  reinterpret,  carries  with  it  a  world 
underneath  the  surface  of  the  earth  to  which  the  dead  go 
down  ;  and  resurrection  means  coming  up  again  from  that 
underground  world.  Nobody  believes  in  any  underground 
world  to-day.  You  cannot  be  resurrected.  That  is,  you- 
cannot  rise  again  unless  you  have  first  gone  down.  It  is  the 
ascent  of  the  soul  we  believe  in  to-day,  and  not  its  resurrec- 
tion, much  less  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

Now  a  word  in  regard  to  another  of  the  great  historic 
creeds. 

The  third  one  to  be  shaped  was  the  Athanasian  Creed. 
Curiously  named  most  of  these  are.  There  was  a  tradition 
in  the  Church  that  Athanasius,  who  was  one  of  the  great 
antagonists  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  wrote  this  creed  called 
after  his  name ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  creed  was  not 
known  in  the  Church  in  the  shape  in  which  we  have  it  now 
until  at  least  four  or  five  hundred  years  after  Athanasius 
was  dead. 

The  Athanasian  Creed  dates  from  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century ;  and  in  this  for  the  first  time  there  is  a  clear,  ex- 
plicit, definite  formulation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
It  never  had  been  shaped  in  perfection  until  the  time  of 
the  Athanasian  Creed ;  and  this  creed  contains  among 
other  things  those  famous  "  damnatory  clauses  "  which  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  to  their  credit  be  it  said, 
have  left  out  of  their  Prayer  Book.  But  this  Athanasian 
Creed  is  obliged  to  be  sung  thirteen  times  every  year  in  the 
Church  of  England  ;  and  you  can  imagine  with  what  grace 
and  joy  they  must  sing  the  statement  that,  unless  a  man 
believes  every  single  word  and  sentence  of  it,  he  shall  no 
doubt  "  perish  everlastingly." 


44  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

The  Athanasian  Creed,  then,  takes  us  only  to  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century.  You  see,  do  you  not,  that,  instead  of 
there  having  been  any  clear,  explicit,  definite  statement  of 
-church  beliefs  on  the  part  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  they 
:are  long  and  slow  growths,  and  not  built  up  on  the  basis  of 
proof  or  evidence, —  simply  opinions  which  people  came  to 
hold  and  fight  for  and  preach,  until  at  last  they  got  a 
majority  to  believe  in  them,  and  they  were  accepted  by 
some  council. 

I  wish  now  to  ask  your  attention  for  a  few  moments  to 
one  or  two  of  the  modern  statements  of  beliefs. 

We  are  face  to  face  here  in  this  modern  world  with  a  very 
strange  condition  of  affairs.  I  wish  I  could  see  the  out- 
come of  it.  Here  are  churches  printing,  publishing,  scat- 
tering all  over  America  and  Europe,  statements  of  belief 
which  perhaps  hardly  one  man  in  ten  among  their  pew- 
holders  or  vestrymen  believes.  They  will  tell  you  they  do  not 
believe  them ;  they  are  almost  angry  with  you  if  you  make 
the  statement  that  these  are  church  beliefs  ;  and  at  the 
same  time  we  are  in  the  curious  position  of  finding  that  the 
man  who  proposes  himself  as  a  candidate  for  the  ministry 
in  any  of  these  churches  dares  not  question  or  doubt  these 
horrible  statements.  And,  if  it  is  found  that  he  does  ques- 
tion them  after  he  gets  into  the  ministry,  he  is  in  danger  of 
a  trial  for  heresy. 

We  have  had  a  perfect  storm  here  in  New  York  in  one  of 
our  greatest  churches  over  Dr.  Briggs.  And  what  was  Dr. 
Briggs  tried  for  ?  Simply  for  raising  the  question  as  to 
whether  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament  was  infallible. 
That  was  all.  Another  professor  in  a  theological  seminary 
in  the  West  was  turned  out  of  his  professorship  for  a  similar 
offence.  An  Episcopal  minister,  a  friend  of  mine  in  Ohio, 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  45 

was  turned  out  of  his  church  for  daring  to  entertain  some  of 
the  modern  ideas  which  are  in  the  air,  and  which  intelligent 
people  believe  everywhere.  One  of  the  best  known  Epis- 
copal ministers  in  this  city  to-day  has  an  indictment  over 
his  head.  It  has  been  there  for  eight  years ;  and  it  is  only 
by  the  good  will  of  his  bishop  that  he  is  tolerated.  His 
crime  is  daring  to  think,  and  to  believe  what  all  the  respect- 
able text-books  of  the  modern  world  teach. 

And  people  in  the  pews  are  indignant  if  you  say  that  their 
Church  holds  these  ideas  1  It  is  a  curious  state  of  affairs. 
How  long  is  it  going  to  last  ?  What  is  to  be  its  outcome  ? 
I  do  not  know. 

But  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  another.  Let  us  note  one 
or  two  points  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith. 

It  teaches  still,  with  what  it  claims  to  be  absolute  au- 
thority, that  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
selected  just  the  precise  number  of  people  that  he  was  going 
to  save ;  that  he  did  this,  not  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  going  to  be  good  people  at  all,  but  arbitrarily  of  his 
own  will,  not  to  be  touched  or  changed  by  anything  in  their 
character  or  conduct.  All  the  rest  he  is  to  "pass  by";  and 
they  are  to  go  to  everlasting  woe.  The  elect  are  very  few : 
those  who  are  passed  by  are  the  many.  And  why  does  he 
do  this  ?  Just  think  for  a  moment.  There  is  no  such  colos- 
sal egotism,  such  extreme  of  selfishness,  in  all  the  world  as 
that  attributed  to  God  in  this  Confession  of  Faith.  The 
one  thing  he  lives  for,  cares  for,  thinks  of,  labors  after,  is 
what  ?  His  own  glory.  He  saves  a  few  people  to  illustrate 
the  glory  of  his  grace  and  mercy.  He  damns  all  the  rest 
purely  to  illustrate  the  glory  of  some  monstrous  thing  called 
his  justice. 

This  kind  of  doctrine  we  are  expected  to  believe  to-day. 


46  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

And  worse  yet,  if  anything  can  be  worse.  I  wonder  how 
many  loving,  tender  mothers  in  all  these  churches  know  it, — 
how  many  know  that  the  little  babe  which  they  clasp  to 
their  bosoms  with  such  infinite  tenderness  and  love,  which 
they  think  of  as  a  gift  from  the  good  God,  right  out  of 
heaven,  is  an  enemy  of  God,  is  under  the  curse  and  wrath 
of  God  ?  How  many  of  you  know  that  your  creed  teaches 
that  God  hates  this  blessed  little  babe,  and  that,  if  he  does 
not  happen  to  be  one  of  the  elect,  he  must  suffer  torment  in 
darkness  forever  and  ever? 

That  is  taught  in  your  confession  of  faith,  which  I  have 
right  here  at  my  hand.  The  only  mitigation  of  it  that  I 
have  ever  heard  of  on  the  part  of  consistent  believers  is 
the  saying  of  Michael  Wigglesworth,  a  famous  alleged  poet 
of  the  Puritan  time  in  New  England,  when  he  states  explic- 
itly that  none  of  these  non-elect  children  can  be  saved,  but 
since  they  are  infants,  and  not  such  bad  sinners  as  the 
grown  up  ones,  their  punishment  shall  be  mitigated  by  their 
having  "the  easiest  room  in  hell." 

Friends,  you  smile  at  this.  This  poem  of  Michael  Wig- 
glesworth's  was  a  household  treasure  in  New  England  for 
a  hundred  years.  No  end  of  editions  was  sold.  It  was  ear- 
nestly, verily  believed ;  and  the  doctrine  is  still  taught  every 
time  that  a  new  edition  of  the  "  Presbyterian  Confession  of 
Faith  "  is  issued  in  this  country  or  in  Europe. 

Shall  we  escape  these  things  by  going  into  other 
churches  ?  Some  of  them,  yes  ;  but  the  essentials  are  there 
in  all  of  them. 

Take  for  one  moment  the  Episcopal  Prayer  Book.  I 
have  had  friends  in  the  old  churches  who  have  become 
Episcopalians  for  no  reason  that  I  could  imagine,  except 
that  it  seemed  to  them  they  were  escaping  some  of  the 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  47 

sharpest  corners  of  the  old  beliefs ;  and  yet,  if  you  will  read 
carefully  the  form  of  service  for  the  baptism  of  infants 
in  the  Episcopal  Prayer  Book  as  held  to-day  and  in  con- 
stant use  in  every  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  and 
England  and  throughout  Europe,  you  will  find  that  it  is 
taught  there  in  the  plainest  and  most  forcible  way  that 
the  unbaptized  infant  is  a  child  of  wrath,  is  under  the 
dominion  of  the  devil,  is  destined  to  everlasting  death, 
and  is  regenerated  only  by  having  a  little  water  placed  on 
its  forehead  and  by  a  priest  saying  over  it  certain  wonderful 
words. 

Can  you  believe,  friends,  for  one  moment  that  a  little 
child  this  minute  belongs  to  the  devil,  is  under  his  domin- 
ion, hated  of  God,  doomed  to  eternal  death,  then  the  priest 
puts  his  fingers  in  some  water,  touches  its  forehead,  and 
says,  "  I  baptize  thee,"  etc.,  and  the  child,  after  this  is  said, 
five  minutes  later,  God  loves,  has  taken  to  his  arms  as  one 
of  his  own  little  children,  and  is  going  to  receive  him  to 
eternal  felicity  forever  ? 

Can  we  believe  such  things  to-day  ?  Do  people  believe 
them  ?  If  they  do  not,  are  they  sincere  in  saying  they  do, 
in  supporting  the  institutions  that  proclaim  to  the  world 
every  hour  of  every  day  of  every  week  of  every  month  of 
every  year  that  they  do  believe  them  ? 

I  have  now  said  all  I  am  going  to  about  these  creeds  in 
any  special  way.  I  wish  now  to  discuss  the  general  situa- 
tion for  a  little. 

I  have  heretofore  said  —  I  wish  to  say  it  again,  to  make  it 
perfectly  plain  and  emphasize  it  —  that  all  these  old  Creeds 
are  based  on  the  supposed  ruin  of  the  race.  They  have 
come  into  existence  for  the  express  purpose  of  saving  as 
many  souls  as  possible  from  this  ruin.  They  never  would 


48  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

have  been  heard  of  but  for  the  belief  in  this  ruin.  And 
yet  to-day  there  is  not  an  intelligent  man  in  Christendom 
that  does  not  know  that  the  doctrine  of  man's  fall  and  ruin 
is  not  only  doubtful,  but  demonstrably  untrue.  It  is  not  a 
matter  of  question :  it  is  settled ;  and  yet  these  churches 
go  on  just  as  though  nothing  had  happened. 

Is  it  sincere  ?  Is  it  quite  honest  ?  Is  this  the  way  you 
use  language  in  Wall  Street,  in  your  banks  and  your  stores  ? 
Is  this  the  way  you  maintain  your  credit  as  business  men  ? 

Oh,  let  us  purge  these  statements  of  outgrown  crudi- 
ties, cruelties,  falsities,  blasphemies,  infamies  1  Let  us  dare 
to  believe  that  the  light  of  God  to-day  is  holier  than  the 
mistakes  about  Him  made  by  those  who  walked  in  darkness. 

Now  let  me  suggest  to  you.  Every  one  of  these  creeds 
sprang  out  of  a  theory  of  the  universe  that  nobody  any 
longer  holds.  They  are  Ptolemaic  in  their  origin,  not 
Copernican.  They  sprang  out  of  a  time  when  it  was  be- 
lieved that  this  was  a  little  tiny  world,  and  God  was  outside 
of  it,  governing  it  by  the  arbitrary  imposition  of  his  law. 
Every  one  of  these  creeds  is  fitted  to  that  theory  of  things; 
and  that  theory  of  things  has  passed  away  absolutely  and 
forever. 

Consider  for  just  a  moment.  Why  should  we  pay  such 
extravagant  deference  to  the  opinions  of  men  who  lived  in 
the  dark  ages,  of  the  old  Church  Fathers, —  of  Athanasius, 
of  Arius,  of  Justin  Martyr,  of  Origen,  of  Tertullian  ?  Why, 
friends,  just  think  for  a  moment.  There  was  hardly  a  single 
point  connected  with  this  world  that  they  knew  anything 
about.  How  did  it  happen  that  the  whole  modern  world 
should  get  on  its  knees  in  their  presence,  as  though  they 
knew  everything  about  the  Infinite,  when  they  knew  next 
to  nothing  about  the  finite  ?  Is  there  any  proof  that  they 
knew  anything  about  it  ?  Not  one  single  particle. 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  49 

Think  for  a  minute.  We  know  to-day  unspeakably  more 
about  the  origin  of  the  Bible,  how  it  grew,  how  it  came  into 
its  present  shape,  than  any  man  from  the  first  century  until 
a  hundred  years  ago  could  by  any  possibility  know.  We 
knew  a  good  deal  more  than  Paul,  though  he  was  one  of 
the  writers, —  unspeakably  more.  He  had  no  means  of  know- 
ing. We  have  sifted  every  particle  of  evidence,  every 
source  of  knowledge  that  the  world  has  to  show.  We  know 
unspeakably  more  about  this  universe  than  any  man  of  the 
olden  time  had  any  way  of  knowing.  He  had  no  way  of 
knowing  anything. 

I  said  something  recently  about  the  origin  and  nature 
of  man.  Very  little  was  known  about  this  until  within 
the  present  century.  We  know  something  about  how  relig- 
ions grow.  We  have  traced  them,  studied  them,  not  only 
Christianity  and  Judaism,  but  all  the  religions  of  the  world 
back  to  their  origin,  and  seen  them  coming  into  shape.  We 
can  judge  something  about  them  to-day.  You  want  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  world  ?  People  are  bowing  in  the  presence  of 
what  they  suppose  to  be  the  antiquity — that  is,  the  hoary- 
headed  wisdom  —  of  the  world.  Why,  friends,  as  you  go 
back,  you  are  not  going  back  to  the  old  age  of  the  world :  you 
are  going  back  to  its  childhood.  The  world  was  never  so 
old  as  it  is  this  morning.  Humanity  was  never  so  old, 
never  had  such  accumulated  experience,  such  accumulated 
knowledge,  as  it  has  this  morning. 

If  you  want  the  results  of  the  world's  hoary-headed  an- 
tiquity, its  wisdom,  its  accumulated  experience,  its  knowl- 
edge, then  get  the  very  latest  results  of  the  very  finest  mod- 
ern investigations ;  for  that  is  where  you  will  find  them. 

Then  let  us  note  in  just  a  word  some  other  reasons  why 
we  cannot  ho'.d  these  old  creeds.  The  statements  that  are 


5O  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

made  about  God  are  horrible.  The  statements  that  are 
made  in  regard  to  the  method  by  which  God  is  going  to 
deal  with  his  creatures  are  horrible ;  and  then  what  they 
tell  us  in  regard  to  the  outcome  of  human  history  is  pes- 
simistic and  hopeless  in  the  extreme. 

Where  do  they  claim  to  get  the  authority  for  these  old 
beliefs  ?  They  tell  us  they  find  them  on  the  one  hand  in 
the  Bible.  What  do  you  find  in  the  Bible  ?  You  find  al- 
most anything  you  look  for.  Is  it  not  perfectly  natural 
you  should  ?  The  Bible  was  written  by  ever  so  many  dif- 
ferent writers  during  a  period  covering  nearly  a  thousand 
years.  Would  you  expect  to  find  the  same  ideas  through- 
out it?  The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  teaches  that  man  dies 
like  a  dog.  The  Bible  upholds  polygamy,  slavery,  cruelty 
of  almost  every  kind.  You  might  prove  almost  any  kind  of 
immorality  from  the  Bible  if  you  wished  to. 

But  take  the  highest  and  noblest  conception  of  the  Bible 
you  can  have.  I  was  talking  with  an  eminent  and  widely 
known  clergyman  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  during  the 
present  year ;  and  we  were  speaking  about  the  Bible.  I 
tell  you  this  to  show  how  modern  ideas  are  permeating  the 
thoughts  of  men.  He  said :  I  confess  that,  if  God  had  ever 
given  the  world  an  infallible  book,  I  should  be  utterly  ap- 
palled and  disheartened  ;  because  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
we  have  no  such  book  now.  And,  if  God  ever  gave  us  such 
a  book,  then  he  has  lost  control  of  his  universe,  and  was 
not  able  to  keep  us  in  possession  of  it. 

Here  are  Quakers  and  Methodists  proving  their  beliefs, 
the  Baptists  proving  theirs,  the  Episcopalians  proving  theirs, 
the  Presbyterians  theirs, —  all  of  them  different  in  some  par- 
ticular, and  each  of  them  getting  their  proof  from  the  Bible. 

Let  us  remember  that  the  Bible  is  simply  a  great  body  of 


May  we  question  the  Creeds  ?  51 

national  literature,  and  that  you  can  prove  anything  out  of 
it.  Then  remember  that  it  has  been  proved  over  and  over 
again  by  the  facts  of  the  handwriting  of  God  himself  to  be 
mistaken  and  wrong  in  any  number  of  directions. 

God  is  writing  his  own  book  in  the  heavens,  in  the  earth, 
in  the  human  heart;  and  we  are  reading  the  story  there. 
No  creed,  then,  particularly  if  it  be  infamous  and  unjust 
and  horrible,  can  prove  itself  to  us  so  that  we  are  bound  to 
accept  it  to-day  on  the  basis  of  an  appeal  to  any  book.  But 
the  Catholic  Church  claims  not  only  that  the  book  is  infal- 
lible, but  that  their  church  tradition  is  infallible  too.  Is  it  ? 
How  can  a  church  prove  that  its  declarations  are  infal- 
lible ?  Is  there  any  way  of  proving  k  ?  Think  for  a  mo- 
ment. It  can  make  the  claim  :  the  only  conceivable  way  of 
proving  it  is  by  never  making  a  mistake.  Try  the  Catholic 
Church  by  that  test.  It  has  committed  itself  over  and  over 
and  over  again  to  things  which  have  been  demonstrated 
beyond  question  to  be  mistakes.  It  has  made  grave  mis- 
takes, not  only  as  to  fact,  but  as  to  morals  as  well. 

On  what,  then,  shall  we  base  any  one  of  these  "  infallible  " 
creeds  ?  There  is  no  basis  for  any  such  claim ;  and  thank 
God  there  is  not.  For  now  we  are  free  to  study,  here, 
there,  everywhere ;  to  read  God's  word  in  the  stars ;  to  read 
it  in  the  rocks ;  to  read  it  in  the  remains  of  old-time  civiliza- 
tions ;  to  read  it  in  the  development  of  education,  the  arts, 
science ;  to  read  it  in  the  light  of  the  love  we  have  for  each 
other,  the  love  for  our  children,  and  the  growing  philan- 
thropy and  widening  benevolence  of  mankind. 

We  have  thus  perfect  freedom  to  listen  when  God  speaks, 
to  see  when  he  holds  a  leaf  of  his  ever-growing  book  for  our 
inspection,  and  to  believe  concerning  him  the  grandest  and 
noblest  and  finest  things  that  the  mind  can  dream  or  the 
heart  can  love. 


WHY   HAVE    UNITARIANS    NO 
CREED? 


FOR  a  Scripture  suggestion  touching  the  principle  in- 
volved in  my  subject,  I  refer  you  to  the  words  found  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  the  forty- 
third  and  the  forty-fourth  verses, —  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it 
hath  been  said ;  but  I  say  unto  you."  I  take  these  phrases 
simply  as  containing  the  principle  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
your  earnest  attention  at  the  outset. 

Jesus  here  recognizes  the  fact  that  the  religious  beliefs  of 
one  age  are  not  necessarily  adequate  to  a  succeeding  age. 
So  he  says  over  and  over  in  this  chapter,  Ye  have  heard 
that  it  hath  been  said  by  the  fathers,  by  the  teachers,  the 
religious  leaders  in  old  times,  so  and  so :  but  I  say  unto  you 
something  else,  something  in  advance,  something  beyond. 

If  any  one  chooses  to  say  that  Jesus  was  infallible,  in- 
spired, and  therefore  had  a  right  to  modify  the  teachings  of 
the  fathers,  still  this  does  not  change  the  principle  at  all. 
In  any  case  he  recognized  the  fact  that  the  beliefs  of  the 
old  time  might  not  be  sufficient  to  the  new  time. 

And,  even  if  any  one  should  take  the  position  that  Jesus 
was  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  that  he  was  the  one 
who  revealed  the  old-time  truth,  and  also  revealed  the  new, 
still  the  principle  is  not  changed :  it  is  conceded,  whatever 
way  we  look  at  it.  For,  even  if  he  were  God,  he  is  repre- 


Why  have  Unitarians  no  Creed?  53 

sented  as  giving  the  people  in  the  time  of  Moses,  the  time 
of  David,  certain  precepts,  certain  things  to  believe,  certain 
things  to  do,  and  then,  recognizing  at  a  later  time  that  they 
were  not  adequate,  changing  those  precepts,  and  giving  them 
something  larger,  broader,  deeper,  to  accept  and  to  practise. 

Because  this  principle  is  here  involved,  I  have  taken  these 
words  as  my  Scripture  point  of  departure. 

Now  to  come  to  the  question  as  to  why  Unitarians  have 
no  creed.  Of  course,  the  answer,  though  it  sounds  like  an 
Hibernicism,  is  to  say  that  they  do  have  a  creed.  Not  a 
creed  in  the  sense  in  which  some  of  the  older  churches  use 
the  word.  If  by  creed  you  mean  a  written  or  published 
statement  of  belief,  one  that  is  supposed  to  be  fixed  and 
final,  one  that  is  a  test  of  religious  fellowship,  which  is 
placed  at  the  door  of  the  church  so  that  no  one  not  accept- 
ing it  is  able  to  enter,  why,  then,  we  have  no  creed.  But, 
in  the  broader  sense  of  the  word,  it  means  belief ;  and  Uni- 
tarians believe  quite  as  much,  and,  in  my  judgment,  things 
far  nobler  and  grander,  than  those  which  have  been  believed 
in  the  past. 

We  are  ready,  if  any  one  wishes  it,  to  write  out  our  creed. 
We  are  perfectly  willing  that  it  should  be  printed.  We  can 
put  it  into  twelve  clauses,  like  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  we  can 
make  thirty-nine  clauses  or  articles,  like  the  Creed  of  the 
Anglican  Church ;  we  can  arrange  it  any  way  that  is  satis- 
factory to  the  questioner.  Only  we  will  not  promise  to  be- 
lieve all  of  it  to-morrow ;  we  will  not  say  that  we  will  never 
learn  anything  ne\v ;  we  will  not  make  it  a  test  of  fellow- 
ship ;  we  will  admit  not  only  to  our  meeting-house,  but  to 
our  church  organization,  if  they  wish  to  come,  people  who  do 
not  believe  all  the  articles  of  the  creed  that  we  shall  write. 
Perhaps  we  will  admit  people  who  do  not  believe  any  of  it ; 
for  our  conception  of  a  church  is  not  the  old  conception. 


54  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

What  was  that  ?  That  it  was  a  sort  of  ark  in  which  the 
saved  were  taken,  to  be  carried  over  the  stormy  sea  of  this  life 
and  into  the  haven  of  eternal  felicity  beyond.  As  opposed 
to  that,  our  conception  of  the  church  is  that  it  is  a  school,  it 
is  a  place  where  souls  are  to  be  trained,  to  be  educated ; 
and  so  we  would  as  soon  refuse  to  admit  an  ignorant  pupil 
to  a  school  as  to  refuse  to  admit  a  person  on  account  of  his 
belief  to  our  church.  We  welcome  all  who  wish  to  come 
and  learn  ;  and  if,  after  they  have  studied  with  us  for  a  year, 
they  do  not  then  accept  all  the  points  which  some  of  us 
believe,  and  hold  to  be  very  important,  we  do  not  turn 
them  out  even  on  that  account. 

Unitarians,  then,  do  have  a  creed,  only  it  is  not  fixed,  it 
is  not  final,  and  it  is  not  the  condition  of  religious  fellowship. 

Now  I  wish  to  give  you  some  of  the  reasons,  as  they  lie  in 
my  mind,  for  the  attitude  which  we  hold  in  regard  to  this 
matter. 

I  do  not  believe  in  having  a  fixed  and  final  statement 
of  belief  which  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  criticise  or  question 
or  change.  Why  ?  Because  I  love  the  truth,  because  I  am 
anxious  to  find  the  truth,  because  I  wish  to  be  perfectly  free 
to  seek  for  the  truth. 

Our  first  reason,  then,  is  for  the  sake  of  the  truth. 

Now  let  me  present  this  to  you  under  three  or  four  minor 
heads.  The  universe  is  infinite,  God  is  infinite,  truth  is 
infinite.  If,  then,  on  the  background  of  the  infinite  you  draw 
a  circle,  no  matter  how  large  it  may  be,  no  matter  how  wide 
its  diameter,  do  you  not  see  that  you  necessarily  shut  out 
more  than  you  shut  in  ?  Do  you  not  see  that  you  limit  the 
range  of  thought,  set  bounds  to  investigation,  and  that  you 
pledge  yourselves  beforehand  that  the  larger  part  of  truth,  of 
God,  of  the  universe,  you  will  never  study,  you  will  never 
investigate  ? 


Why  have   Unitarians  no  Creed?  55 

There  is  another  point  bearing  on  this  matter.  If  a  man 
pledges  himself  to  accept  and  abide  by  a  fixed  and  final 
creed,  he  does  it  either  for  a  reason  or  without  a  reason.  If 
he  does  it  without  a  reason,  then  there  is,  of  course,  no 
reason  why  we  should  follow  his  example.  If  he  has  a  rea- 
son, then  two  things  :  either  that  reason  is  adequate,  sound, 
conclusive,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not  adequate,  then  we  ought 
to  study  and  criticise  and  find  that  out,  and  be  free  to  dis- 
cover some  reason  that  is  adequate.  If  the  reason  for  his 
holding  the  creed  is  an  adequate  one,  then,  certainly,  no 
harm  can  be  done  by  investigation  of  it,  by  asking  questions. 

If  the  men  who  hold  these  old  creeds  and  defend  them 
can  give  in  the  court  of  reason  a  perfectly  good  account  of 
themselves,  if  they  can  bring  satisfactory  credentials,  then 
all  our  questioning,  all  our  criticism,  all  our  investigation, 
cannot  possibly  do  the  creeds  any  harm.  It  will  only  mean 
that  we  shall  end  by  being  convinced  ourselves,  and  shall 
accept  the  creeds  freely  and  rationally. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  a  very  strange  attitude  of 
mind  for  a  man  to  feel  perfectly  convinced  that  a  certain 
position  is  sound  and  true,  and  to  be  angry  when  anybody 
asks  a  question  about  it.  If  there  are  good  reasons  for 
holding  it,  instead  of  calling  names,  why  not  show  us  the 
reasons  ?  He  who  is  afraid  to  have  his  opinions  questioned, 
he  who  is  angry  when  you  ask  him  for  evidence,  to  give  a 
reason  for  the  position  that  he  holds,  shows  that  he  is  not 
at  all  certain  of  it.  He  admits  by  implication  that  it  is 
weak.  He  shows  an  attitude  of  infidelity  instead  of  an  atti- 
tude of  faith,  of  trust. 

There  is  no  position  which  I  hold  to-day  that  I  consider 
so  sacred  that  people  are  not  at  liberty  to  ask  any  questions 
about  it  they  please ;  and,  if  they  do  not  see  a  good  reason 


56  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

for  accepting  it,  I  am  certainly  not  going  to  be  angry  with 
them  for  declining  to  accept.  The  attitude  of  truth  is  that 
of  welcome  to  all  inquiry.  It  rejoices  in  daylight,  it  does 
not  care  to  be  protected  from  investigation. 

Then  there  is  another  reason  still,  another  point  to  be 
made  in  regard  to  this  matter.  People  are  not  very  likely 
to  find  the  truth  if  they  are  frightened,  if  they  are  warned 
off,  if  they  are  told  that  this  or  that  or  another  thing  is 
too  sacred  to  be  investigated.  I  have  known  people  over 
and  over  again  in  my  past  experience  who  long  wished 
they  might  be  free  to  accept  some  grander,  nobler,  more 
helpful  view  of  truth,  and  yet  have  been  trained  and  taught 
so  long  that  it  was  wicked  to  doubt,  that  it  was  wicked  to 
ask  questions,  that  they  did  not  dare  to  open  their  minds 
freely  to  the  incoming  of  any  grander  hope. 

If  you  tell  people  that  they  may  study  just  as  widely  as 
they  please,  but,  when  they  get  through,  they  must  come 
back  and  settle  down  within  the  limits  of  certain  pre-deter- 
mined  opinions,  what  is  the  use  of  their  wider  excursion  ? 
And,  if  you  tell  them  that,  unless  they  accept  these  final  con- 
clusions, God  is  going  to  be  angry  with  them,  they  are  going 
to  injure  their  own  immortal  souls,  they  are  threatening 
the  welfare  of  the  people  on  every  hand  whom  they  influ- 
ence, how  can  you  expect  them  to  study  and  come  to  con- 
clusions which  are  entitled  to  the  respect  of  thoughtful 
people  ? 

I  venture  the  truth  of  the  statement  that,  if  you  should 
inquire  over  this  country  to-day,  you  would  find  that  the 
large  majority  of  people  who  have  been  trained  in  the  old 
faith  are  in  an  attitude  of  fear  towards  modern  thought. 
Thousands  of  them  would  come  to  us  to-day  if  they  were 
not  kept  back  by  this  inherited  and  ingrained  fear  as  to 
the  danger  of  asking  questions. 


Why  have   Unitarians  no  Creed?  57 

Do  I  not  remember  my  own  experience  of  three  years' 
agonizing  battle  over  the  great  problems  that  were  involved 
in  these  questions, —  afraid  that  I  was  being  tempted  of  the 
devil,  afraid  that  I  was  risking  the  salvation  of  my  soul, 
afraid  that  I  might  be  endangering  other  people  whom  I 
might  influence, —  never  free  to  study  the  Bible,  to  study 
religious  questions  as  I  would  study  any  other  matter  on  the 
face  of  the  earth  on  account  of  being  haunted  by  this  ter- 
rible dread  ? 

And,  then,  there  is  one  other  point.  I  must  touch  on 
these  very  briefly.  The  acceptance  of  these  creeds  on  the 
part  of  those  who  do  hold  to  them  does  not,  after  all,  prevent 
the  growth  of  modern  thought.  It  does  hinder  it,  so  far  as 
they  are  concerned  ;  but  the  point  I  wish  to  make  is  this, — 
that  these  creeds  do  not  answer  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  constructed.  They  are  supposed  to  be  fixed  and  final 
statements  of  divine  truth,  which  are  not  to  be  questioned 
and  not  to  be  changed. 

Dr.  Richard  S.  Storrs,  of  Brooklyn,  the  famous  Con- 
gregational minister,  said  a  few  years  ago  that  the  idea  of 
progress  in  theology  was  absurd,  because  the  truth  had  once 
for  all  been  given  to  the  saints  in  the  past,  and  there  was 
no  possibility  of  progress,  because  progress  implied  change. 
And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  effort  that  has  been  made  to  keep 
the  faith  of  the  world  as  it  was  in  the  past,  the  change  is 
coming,  the  change  does  come  every  day ;  and  it  puts  the 
people  who  are  trying  to  prevent  the  change  coming  in  an 
attitude  of  —  what  shall  I  say  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  make  a 
charge  against  my  brethren, —  it  puts  them  in  a  very  curious 
attitude  indeed  towards  the  truth.  They  must  not  accept  a 
new  idea  if  it  conflicts  with  the  old  creed,  however  much 
they  may  be  convinced  it  is  true.  If  they  do  accept  it,  then 


58  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

what  ?  They  must  either  leave  the  Church  or  they  must 
keep  still  about  it,  and  remain  in  an  attitude  of  appearing 
to  believe  what  they  really  do  not  believe.  Or  else  they 
must  do  violence  to  the  creed,  reinterpreting  it  in  such  a 
way  as  to  make  it  to  them  what  the  framers  of  it  had  never 
dreamed  of. 

Do  you  not  see  the  danger  that  there  is  here  of  a  per- 
son's disingenuous  attitude  towards  the  truth,  danger  to  the 
moral  fibre,  danger  to  the  progress  of  man  ?  Take  as  a 
hint  of  it  the  way  the  Bible  has  been  treated.  People  have 
said  that  the  Bible  was  absolutely  infallible  :  they  have 
taken  that  as  a  foregone  conclusion ;  and  then,  when  they 
found  out  beyond  question  that  the  world  was  not  created 
in  six  days,  what  have  they  done  ?  Frankly  accepted  the 
truth  ?  No,  they  have  tried  to  twist  the  Bible  into  meaning 
something  different  from  what  it  plainly  says.  It  expressly 
says  days,  bounded  by  morning  and  evening;  but  no,  it 
must  mean  long  periods  of  time.  Why  ?  Because  science 
and  the  Bible  must  somehow  be  reconciled,  no  matter  if  the 
Bible  is  wrenched  and  twisted  from  its  real  meaning. 

And  so  with  regard  to  the  creeds.  The  creeds  say  that 
Christ  descended  into  hell ;  that  is,  the  underworld.  People 
come  to  know  that  there  is  no  underworld  ;  and,  instead  of 
frankly  admitting  that  that  statement  in  the  creed  is  not 
correct,  they  must  torture  it  out  of  its  meaning,  and  make  it 
stand  for  something  that  the  framers  of  it  had  never  heard 
of.  I  think  it  would  greatly  astonish  the  writers  of  the 
Bible  and  the  Church  Fathers  if  they  could  wake  up  to-day, 
and  find  out  that  they  meant  something  when  they  wrote 
those  things  which  had  never  occurred  to  them  at  the  time. 

Is  this  quite  honest  ?  Is  it  wise  for  us  to  put  ourselves  in 
this  attitude  ? 


Why  have   Unitarians  no  Creed  f  59 

I  wish  to  speak  a  little  further  in  this  matter  as  to  not 
preventing  the  coming  in  of  modern  thought,  and  to  take 
one  illustration.  Look  at  Andover  Seminary  to-day.  The 
Andover  Creed  was  arranged  for  the  express  purpose  of 
keeping  fixed  and  unchangeable  the  belief  of  the  Church. 
Its  founders  declared  that  to  be  their  purpose.  They  were 
going  to  establish  the  statement  of  belief,  so  that  it  should 
not  be  open  to  this  modern  criticism,  which  had  resulted 
in  the  birth  of  Unitarianism  in  New  England ;  and,  in  order 
to  make  perfectly  certain  of  it,  they  said  that  the  pro- 
fessors who  came  there  to  teach  the  creed  must  not  only  be 
sound  when  they  were  settled,  but  they  must  be  re-examined 
every  five  years.  This  was  to  prevent  their  changing  their 
minds  during  the  five  years  and  remaining  on  there, 
teaching  some  false  doctrine  while  the  overseers  and 
managers  were  not  aware  of  it.  So  every  five  years  the 
professors  and  teachers  of  Andover  have  to  reaffirm 
solemnly  their  belief  in  the  old  creed. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  make  charges  against  them  ;  but  it  is 
for  me  to  make  the  statement  that  so  suspicious  have  the 
overseers  and  managers  come  to  be  of  some  of  the  pro- 
fessors in  the  seminary  that  they  have  been  tried  more  than 
once  for  heresy ;  and  everybody  knows  that  the  leading  pro- 
fessors there  to-day  do  not  believe  the  creed  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  was  framed. 

And,  to  illustrate  how  this  is  looked  upon  by  some  of  the 
students,  let  me  tell  you  this.  My  brother  was  a  graduate 
of  Andover  ;  and  not  long  ago  he  said  to  me  that  when  the 
time  came  around  for  the  professors  to  reaffirm  their  alle- 
giance to  the  creed,  one  of  the  other  students  came  into  his 
room  one  day,  and  said,  "  Savage,  let's  go  up  and  see  the 
professors  perjure  themselves." 


60  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

This  was  the  attitude  of  mind  of  one  of  the  students. 
This  is  the  way  he  looked  at  it.  I  am  not  responsible  for 
his  opinion ;  but  is  it  quite  wise,  is  it  best  for  the  truth,  is  it 
for  the  interests  of  religion,  to  have  theological  students  in 
this  state  of  mind  towards  their  professor  ? 

Modern  thought  does  come  into  the  minds  of  men  :  they 
cannot  escape  it.  What  does  it  mean  ?  It  means  simply 
a  new,  higher,  grander  revelation  of  God.  Is  it  wise  for 
us  to  put  ourselves  into  such  a  position  that  it  shall  seem 
criminal  and  evil  for  us  to  accept  it  ?  If  we  pledge  our- 
selves not  to  learn  the  things  we  can  know,  then  we  stunt 
ourselves  intellectually.  If,  after  we  have  pledged  our- 
selves, we  accept  these  things  and  remain  as  we  are,  I  leave 
somebody  else  to  characterize  such  action,  —  action  which,  in 
my  judgment,  and  so  far  as  my  observation  goes,  is  not  at 
all  uncommon. 

We  then  propose  to  hold  ourselves  free  so  far  as  a  fixed 
and  final  creed  is  concerned,  because  we  wish  to  be  able  to 
study,  to  find  and  accept  the  truth. 

There  is  another  reason.  For  the  sake  of  God,  because 
we  wish  to  find  and  come  into  sympathy  with  him,  and  love 
him  and  serve  him,  we  refuse  to  be  bound  by  the  thoughts 
of  the  past. 

What  do  we  mean  by  coming  into  a  knowledge  of  God  ? 
Let  me  illustrate  a  moment  by  the  relation  which  we  may 
sustain  to  another  man.  You  do  not  necessarily  come  close 
to  a  man  because  you  touch  his  elbow  on  the  street.  The 
people  who  lived  in  Shakspere's  London  might  not  have 
been  so  near  to  Shakspere  as  is  Mr.  Furness,  the  great  Shak- 
spere  critic  to-day,  or  Mr.  Rolfe,  of  Cambridge. 

Physical  proximity  does  not  bring  us  close  to  a  person. 
We  may  be  near  to  a  friend  who  is  half-way  round  the 


Why  have  Unitarians  no  Creed?  61 

world :  there  may  be  sympathetic  heart-beats  that  shall  make 
us  conscious  of  his  presence  night  and  day.  We  may  be 
close  alongside  of  a  person,  but  alienated  from  him,  mis- 
understanding him,  and  really  farther  away  from  him  than 
the  diameter  of  the  solar  system. 

If,  then,  we  wish  to  get  near  to  God,  and  to  know  him, 
we  must  become  like  him.  There  must  be  love,  tenderness, 
unselfishness.  We  must  have  the  divine  characteristics  and 
qualities ;  and  then  we  shall  feel  his  presence,  know  and  be 
near  him. 

People  may  find  God,  and  still  have  very  wrong  theories 
about  him ;  just  as  a  farmer  may  raise  a  good  crop  without 
understanding  much  about  theories  of  sunshine  or  of  soil. 
But  the  man  who  does  understand  about  them  will  be  more 
likely  to  raise  a  good  crop,  because  he  goes  about  it  intelli- 
gently ;  while  the  other  simply  blunders  into  it.  So,  if  we 
have  right  thoughts  about  God,  it  is  easier  for  us  to  get  into 
sympathy  with  him.  If  we  think  about  him  as  noble  and 
sweet  and  grand  and  true  and  loving,  we  shall  be  more 
likely  to  repond  to  these  qualities  that  call  out  the  best  and 
the  finest  feelings  in  ourselves. 

I  do  not  say  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  correct 
theories  of  God.  There  have  been  good  men  in  all  ages, 
there  have  been  noble  women  in  all  ages,  in  all  religions,  in 
all  the  different  sects  of  Christendom.  There  are  lovely 
characters  among  the  agnostics.  I  have  known  sweet  and 
true  and  fine  people  who  thought  themselves  atheists.  A 
man  may  be  grand  in  spite  of  his  theological  opinions  one 
way  or  the  other.  He  may  have  a  horrible  picture  of  God 
set  forth  in  his  creed,  and  carry  a  loving  and  tender  one  in 
his  heart.  So  he  may  be  better  than  the  God  of  his  creed. 
All  this  is  true  ;  but,  if  we  have,  I  say,  right  thoughts  about 


62  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

him,  high  and  fine  ideals,  we  are  more  likely  to  come  into 
close  touch  and  sympathy  with  him. 

And,  then, —  and  here  is  a  point  I  wish  to  emphasize  and 
make  perfectly  clear, —  this  arbitrary  assumption  of  infalli- 
bility cultivates  qualities  and  characteristics  which  are  un- 
and  anti-divine. 

Let  us  see  what  Jesus  had  to  say  about  this.  The  people 
of  his  time  who  represented  more  than  any  others  this  infalli- 
bility idea  were  the  Pharisees.  They  felt  perfectly  sure  that 
they  were  right.  They  felt  perfectly  certain  that  they  were 
the  chosen  favorites  of  God.  There  was  on  their  part,  then, 
growing  out  of  this  conception  of  the  infallibility  of  their 
position,  the  conceit  of  being  the  chosen  and  special  favorites 
of  the  Almighty.  They  looked  with  contempt,  not  only 
upon  the  Gentiles,  who  were  outside  of  the  peculiarly  chosen 
people,  but  upon  the  publicans, —  upon  all  of  their  own  nation 
who  were  not  Pharisees,  and  who  were  not  scrupulously 
exact  concerning  the  things  which  they  held  to  be  so  im- 
portant. 

What  did  Jesus  think  and  say  about  them  ?  You  remem- 
ber the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican.  Jesus 
said  that  this  poor  sinning  publican,  who  smote  upon  his 
breast,  and  said,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  was  the 
one  that  God  looked  upon  with  favor, —  not  the  Pharisee,  who 
thanked  God  that  he  was  not  as  the  other  people  were. 
And,  if  there  is  any  class  in  the  New  Testament  that  Jesus 
scathes  and  withers  with  the  hot  lightning  of  his  scorn  and 
his  wrafh,  it  is  these  infallible  people,  who  are  perfectly  right 
in  their  ideas,  and  who  look  with  contempt  upon  people  who 
are  outside  of  the  pale  of  their  own  inherited  infallible 
creeds  and  opinions. 

We  believe,  then,  that  the  people  who  are  free  to  study 


Why  Jiave  Unitarians  no  Creed  J  63 

the  splendors  of  God  in  the  universe,  in  human  history,  in 
human  life,  and  free  to  accept  all  new  and  higher  and  finer 
ideas,  are  more  likely  to  find  God,  and  come  into  sym- 
pathetic and  tender  relations  with  him,  than  those  who  are 
bound  to  opinions  by  the  supposed  fixed  and  revealed  truths 
of  the  past. 

We  reject,  then,  these  old-time  creeds  for  another  reason, 
—  for  the  sake  of  man.  A  long  vista  of  thought  and  illus- 
tration stretches  out  before  me  as  I  pronounce  these  words  ; 
but  I  can  only  touch  upon  a  point  here  or  there. 

One  of  the  most  disastrous  things  that  have  happened  in 
the  history  of  the  past  —  and  it  has  happened  over  and  over 
again  —  is  this  blocking  and  hindering  of  human  advance, 
until  by  and  by  the  tide,  the  growing  current,  becomes  too 
strong  to  be  held  back  any  more  ;  and  it  has  swept  away 
all  barriers  and  devastated  society,  politically,  socially, 
religiously,  morally,  and  in  every  other  way. 

And  why  ?  Simply  because  the  natural  flow  of  human 
thought,  the  natural  growth  of  human  opinion,  has  been 
hindered  artificially  by  the  assumption  of  an  infallibility  on 
the  part  of  those  who  have  tried  to  keep  the  world  from 
growth. 

Suppose  you  teach  men  that  certain  theological  opinions 
are  identical  with  religion,  until  they  believe  it.  The  time 
comes  when  they  cannot  hold  those  opinions  any  more,  and 
they  break  away ;  and  they  give  up  religion,  and  perhaps  the 
sanctities  of  life,  which  they  are  accustomed  to  associate 
with  religion. 

Take  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution.  People  went 
mad.  They  were  opposed  not  only  to  the  State :  they  were 
opposed  to  the  Church.  They  tried  to  abolish  God,  they  tried 
to  abolish  the  Ten  Commandments ;  they  tried  to  abolish 


64  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

everything  that  had  been  so  long  established  and  associated 
with  the  old  regime. 

Were  the  people  really  enemies  of  God  ?  Were  they  ene- 
mies of  religion  ?  Were  they  enemies  of  truth  ?  No :  it  was 
a  caricature  of  God  that  they  were  righting,  it  was  a  carica- 
ture of  religion  that  they  were  opposed  to.  When  Voltaire 
declared  that  the  Church  was  infamous,  it  was  not  religion 
that  he  wished  to  overthrow :  it  was  this  tyranny  that  had 
been  associated  with  the  dominance  of  the  Church  for  so 
many  ages. 

This  is  the  result  in  one  direction  of  attempting  to  hold 
back  the  natural  growth  and  progress  of  the  world.  If  you 
read  the  history  of  the  Church  for  the  last  fifteen  hundred 
years  until  within  a  century  or  two, —  and  by  the  Church 
I  mean  that  organization  that  has  claimed  to  speak  in- 
fallibly for  God, —  you  will  find  that  it  has  been  associated 
with  almost  everything  that  has  hindered  the  growth  of  the 
world.  I  cannot  go  into  details  to  illustrate  it.  It  has  inter- 
fered with  the  world's  education.  There  is  only  one  nation 
in  Europe  to-day  where  education  has  not  been  wrenched  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  priesthood  in  the  interests  of  man,  and 
that  even  by  Catholics  themselves ;  and  that  country  is 
Spain.  It  pronounced  its  ban  on  the  study  of  the  universe 
under  the  name  of  science.  It  made  it  a  sin  for  Galileo 
to  discover  the  moons  of  Jupiter.  And  Catholic  and  Prot- 
estant infallibility  alike  denounced  Newton,  one  of  the 
noblest  men  and  the  grandest  scientists  that  the  world  has 
ever  seen,  because  in  proclaiming  the  law  of  gravity,  they 
said,  he  was  taking  the  universe  out  of  the  hands  of  God 
and  establishing  practical  atheism. 

So  almost  everything  that  has  made  the  education,  the 
political,  the  industrial,  the  social  growth  of  the  world,  this 


Why  have  Unitarians  no  Creed  J  65 

infallibility  idea  has  stood  square  in  the  way  of,  and  done 
its  best  to  hinder.  Take,  for  example,  an  illustration. 
When  chloroform  was  discovered,  the  Church  in  Scotland 
opposed  its  use  in  cases  of  childbirth,  because  it  said  it  was 
a  wicked  interference  with  the  judgment  God  pronounced 
on  Eve  after  the  fall. 

So,  in  almost  every  direction,  whatever  has  been  for  the 
benefit  of  the  world  has  been  opposed  in  the  interests  of 
old-time  ideas,  until  the  whole  thing  culminated  at  last  in 
this :  Here  is  this  nineteenth  century  of  ours,  which  has 
done  more  for  the  advancement  of  man  than  the  preceding 
fifteen  centuries  all  put  together.  Political  liberty,  religious 
liberty,  universal  education,  the  enfranchisement  and  eleva- 
tion of  women,  the  abolition  of  slavery,  temperance, —  al- 
most everything  has  been  achieved,  until  the  world,  the  face 
of  it,  has  been  transformed.  And  yet  Pope  Pius  IX., 
in  an  encyclical  which  he  issued  a  little  while  before  his 
death,  pronounced,  ex-cathedra  and  infallibly,  the  opinion 
that  this  whole  modern  society  was  godless.  And  yet,  as 
I  said,  this  godless  modern  world  has  done  more  for  man 
and  for  the  glory  of  God  than  the  fifteen  hundred  years  of 
church  dominance  that  preceded  it. 

For  the  sake  of  man,  then,  that  intellectually,  politically, 
socially,  industrially,  every  other  way,  he  may  be  free  to 
grow,  to  expand,  to  adopt  all  the  new  ideas  that  promise 
higher  help,  hope,  and  freedom, —  for  the  sake  of  man,  we 
refuse  to  be  bound  by  the  inherited  and  fixed  opinions  of 
the  past. 

Now  two  or  three  points  I  wish  to  speak  of  briefly,  as  I 
near  the  close. 

We  are  charged  sometimes,  because  we  have  no  creed, 
with  having  no  bond  of  union  whatever.  As  I  said  a  few 


66  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Sundays  ago,  they  say  that  \ve  are  all  at  loose  ends  because 
we  are  not  fixed  and  bound  by  a  definite  creed. 

What  is  God's  method  of  keeping  a  system  like  this  solar 
one  of  ours  together  ?  Does  he  fence  it  in  ?  Does  he 
exert  any  pressure  from  outside  ?  Or  does  he  rather  place 
at  the  centre  a  luminous  and  attractive  body,  capable  of 
holding  all  the  swinging  and  singing  members  of  the  sys- 
tem in  their  orbits,  as  they  play  around  this  great  source  of 
life  and  of  light  ?  God's  method  is  the  method  of  illumina- 
tion and  attraction.  That  is  the  method  which  we  have 
adopted.  Instead  of  fencing  men  in  and  telling  them  to 
climb  over  that  fence  at  their  peril,  we  have  placed  a  great, 
luminous,  attractive  truth  at  the  centre, —  the  pursuit  of 
truth,  the  love  of  truth,  the  search  for  God,  the  desire  to 
benefit  and  help  on  mankind.  And  we  trust  to  the  power 
of  these  great  central  truths  to  attract  and  keep  in  their 
orbits  all  the  free  activities  of  the  thousands  of  minds  and 
hearts  that  make  up  our  organization. 

Then  there  is  one  more  point.  Suppose  we  wanted  an 
infallible  creed  ;  suppose  it  was  ever  so  important ;  sup- 
pose the  experience  of  the  world  had  proved  that  it  was 
very  desirable  indeed  that  we  should  have  one.  What  are 
we  going  to  do  about  it  ?  I  suppose  that  men  in  other 
departments  of  life  than  the  ecclesiastical  would  like  an 
infallible  guide.  Men  engaged  in  business  would  like  an 
infallible  handbook  that  would  point  them  the  way  to  suc- 
cess. The  gold  hunters  would  like  an  infallible  guide  to 
the  richest  ores.  Navigators  on  the  sea  would  like  infallible 
methods  of  manning  and  sailing  their  ships.  The  farmer 
would  like  to  know  that  he  was  following  an  infallible  method 
to  success.  It  would  be  very  desirable  in  many  respects; 
it  would  save  us  no  end  of  trouble. 


Why  have  Unitarians  no  Creed  f  67 

But  it  is  admitted  that  in  these  other  departments  of  life, 
whether  we  want  infallible  guides  or  not,  we  do  not  have 
them.  And  I  think,  if  you  will  look  at  the  matter  a  little 
deeply  and  carefully,  you  will  become  persuaded  that  it 
would  not  be  the  best  for  us  if  we  could.  Men  not  only 
wish  to  gain  certain  ends,  but,  if  they  are  wise,  they  wish 
more  than  that, —  to  cultivate  and  develop  and  unfold  them- 
selves, which  they  can  only  do  by  study,  by  mistakes,  by 
correcting  mistakes,  by  finding  out  through  experience  what 
is  true  and  what  is  false.  In  this  process  of  study  and  ex- 
perience they  find  themselves, —  something  infinitely  more 
important  than  any  external  fact  or  success  which  they  may 
discover  or  achieve. 

So  I  believe  that  a  similar  thing  is  true  in  the  religious 
life.  It  might  be  a  great  saving  of  trouble  if  we  were  sure 
we  had  an  infallible  guide.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
a  great  many  persons  who  go  into  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  in  this  modern  time,  go  there  because  they  are 
tired  of  thinking,  and  wish  to  shift  the  responsibility  of  it 
on  to  some  one  else. 

It  is  tiresome,  it  is  hard  work.  Sometimes  we  would  like 
to  escape  it :  we  would  like  infallible  guides.  But  I  have 
studied  the  world  with  all  the  care  that  I  could ;  and  I  have 
never  been  able  to  find  the  materials  out  of  which  I  could 
construct  an  infallible  guide,  if  I  wanted  it  ever  so  much. 

Whether  it  is  important  or  not  to  have  infallible  teaching 
in  the  theological  realm,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  infal- 
libility that  is  accessible  to  us  ;  and  I,  for  one,  do  not  believe 
that  it  would  be  best  for  us  if  there  were.  God  is  treating 
us  more  wisely  and  kindly  than,  if  we  were  able,  we  would 
treat  ourselves;  because  it  is  not  the  discovery  of  this  or 
that  particular  fact  or  truth  that  is  so  important  as  is  the 


68  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

development  of  our  own  intellectual  and  moral  and 
spiritual  natures  in  the  search  for  truth. 

Lessing  said  a  very  wise  thing  when  he  declared  that,  if 
God  should  offer  him  the  perfect  truth  in  one  hand  and  the 
privilege  of  seeking  for  it  in  the  other,  he  should  accept  the 
privilege  of  search  as  the  nobler  and  more  valuable  gift, 
because,  in  this  seeking,  we  develop  ourselves,  we  cultivate 
the  Divine,  and  work  our  natures  over  into  the  likeness  of 
God. 

And  now  at  the  end  I  wish  simply  to  say  that  God  has 
given  us  the  better  thing  in  letting  us  freely  and  earnestly 
and  simply  investigate  and  look  after  the  truth,  cultivating 
ourselves  in  the  process,  and  being  wrought  over  ever  more 
and  more  into  the  likeness  of  the  divine. 

And  I  wish  also  to  say,  for  the  comfort  of  those  who  may 
think  that  this  lack  of  infallible  guides  is  a  serious  matter, — 
it  may  astonish  you  to  have  me  say  it, —  that  there  is  not  a 
single  matter  of  any  practical  importance  in  our  moral  and 
religious  life  concerning  which  there  is  any  doubt  whatso- 
ever. If  anybody  tells  you  that  he  is  not  living  a  religious 
life  or  not  living  a  moral  life,  for  the  lack  of  light  and  guid- 
ance, do  not  believe  him. 

What  are  the  things  that  are  in  question  ?  What  are  the 
things  of  which  we  are  sure  ?  Take,  for  example,  the  mat- 
ter of  Biblical  criticism, —  as  to  who  wrote  the  book  of  Chron- 
icles, as  to  whether  Deuteronomy  was  written  by  Moses  or 
compiled  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah.  Are  there  any  great 
spiritual  problems  waiting  for  those  questions  to  be  settled  ? 
Do  you  need  to  have  that  matter  made  clear  before  you 
know  whether  you  ought  to  be  an  honest  man  in  your  busi- 
ness, whether  you  ought  to  judge  charitably  of  a  friend 
who  has  gone  astray,  whether  you  ought  to  be  helpful 


Why  have  Unitarians  no  Creed  f  69 

towards  your  neighbors,  whether  you  ought  to  be  kind  to 
your  wife,  and  whether  you  ought  to  lovingly  train  and  cul- 
tivate your  children  ? 

Take  another  of  the  great  questions,  as  to  the  authorship 
of  the  Gospel  of  John.  I  shall  be  immensely  interested  in 
the  settlement  of  that  if  the  time  ever  comes  when  it  is  set- 
tled ;  but  it  would  be  a  purely  critical  interest  that  I  should 
have.  I  am  not  going  to  wait  until  that  is  settled  before  I 
lead  a  religious  life.  I  am  not  going  to  let  that  stand  in  the 
way  of  my  helping  on  the  progress  of  the  world. 

I  tell  you,  friends,  that  these  matters  that  are  in  doubt, 
that  need  an  infallibility  to  settle  them,  are  not  the  practi- 
cal matters  at  all.  We  look  off  into  the  vast  universe 
around  us,  and  question  about  God.  Is  he  personal  ?  Can 
we  have  the  old  ideas  about  him  ?  One  thing  is  settled : 
we  know  we  are  the  product  of  and  in  the  presence  of  an 
Eternal  Order,  and  that  knowing  and  keeping  the  laws  of 
the  universe  mean  life  and  happiness,  but  the  opposite 
means  death.  That  is  the  practical  part  of  it. 

We  know  that  the  Power  that  is  in  this  universe  is  mak- 
ing gradually  through  the  ages  for  righteousness ;  and  we 
know  that  the  righteous  and  helpful  life  is  the  only  manly 
life  for  us  to  lead,  for  our  own  sake,  for  the  sake  of  those 
we  can  touch  and  influence. 

Are  we  going  to  wait  for  criticism  to  settle  metaphysical 
problems  before  we  do  anything  about  these  great  practical 
matters  ? 

Whatever  your  theory  about  Jesus  may  be,  you  can  at 
least  be  like  him,  and  wait ;  and,  when  you  see  him,  you  will 
love  him,  and  know  the  truth  about  him,  if  you  cannot  be- 
fore. 

Matthew  Arnold,  an  agnostic,  has  put  into  two  or  three 


7O  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

lines,  which  I  wish  to  read  now  at  the  end,  what  might  well 
be  the  creed  of  the  person  who  doubts  so  much  that  he 
thinks  nothing  is  settled.  If  you  cannot  say  any  more  than 
this,  here  is  all  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  very 
noblest  life :  — 

"  Hath  man  no  second  life  ?     Pitch  this  one  high. 
Sits  there  no  Judge  in  heaven  our  sin  to  see  ? 
More  strictly,  then,  the  inward  judge  obey. 
Was  Christ  a  man  like  us  ?     Ah  !  let  us  try 
If  we,  then,  too,  can  be  such  men  as  he." 


THE  REAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  PRESENT 
RELIGIOUS  DISCUSSION. 


SCIENCE  tells  us  that  the  law  of  growth  is  embodied  in  the 
phrase,  "the  struggle  for  life  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest." 
As  we  look  beneath  the  surface  in  any  department  of 
human  endeavor,  analyze  things  a  little  carefully,  we  dis- 
cover that  this  contest  is  going  on.  We  know  that  it  is  not 
confined  to  the  lower  forms  of  life  or  the  order  of  the  inani- 
mate world.  It  is  a  universal  law.  We  are  not  always  con- 
scious of  it ;  but,  when  we  do  think  and  study,  we  discover  it 
as  an  unescapable  fact. 

In  the  religious  world,  for  example,  between  the  different 
thoughts  and  theories  which  are  held  among  men  as  solu- 
tions of  the  problems  of  life  we  find  this  contest  going  on. 
Here,  again,  it  is  not  always  noticed ;  but  in  the  mind  of  any 
man  who  thinks,  who  reads,  who  reflects,  this  process  is 
apparent.  This  view  is  considered,  another  view  mentioned 
by  somebody  else  is  set  over  against  it,  and  the  claims  of 
the  two  theories  are  brought  up  for  judgment.  And  so 
there  goes  on  perpetually  this  debate.  Now  and  again  it 
comes  to  the  surface,  and  attracts  popular  attention.  We 
have  been  in  the  midst  of  an  experience  of  this  kind  for  the 
last  two  or  three  weeks  here  in  New  York  City. 

But  the  thing  I  want  you  to  note  is  —  and  that  is  the 
great  lesson  I  have  in  mind  this  morning  —  that  all  of  this 
superficial  discussion  of  one  point  or  another  is  only  an 


72  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

indication  of  a  larger,  deeper  contest.  When,  for  example, 
men  are  debating  as  to  the  infallibility  or  inerrancy  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  to  the  story  of  the  creation  as  told  in 
Genesis,  as  to  the  nature  and  work  of  Jesus,  as  to  the  future 
destiny  of  the  race, —  when  they  are  discussing  any  one  of 
these  particular  problems,  they  are  dealing  with  matters 
that  are  really  superficial.  Underneath  these  there  is  a 
larger  problem ;  and  to  this  problem  and  its  probable  issues 
I  wish  to  call  your  attention  this  morning. 

There  are  two  great  world  theories,  complete  each  in 
itself,  both  of  them  thinkable,  mutually  exclusive,  one  of 
which  only  can  be  true,  and  one  of  which  must  finally 
become  dominant  in  the  educated  and  free  thought  of  the 
world.  These  two  theories  I  wish  to  place  face  to  face 
before  you  this  morning,  call  your  attention  to  some  of  their 
special  features  and  note  the  claims  they  have  on  our  ac- 
ceptance. 

Before  doing  this,  however,  I  wish  you  to  note  that  there 
are  indications  of  a  dual  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  human 
mind  which  has  not  been  manifested  in  the  development  of 
these  two  theories  alone,  but  which  has  had  illustrations 
in  other  directions  and  in  other  times. 

In  the  early  traditions  of  Greece  and  Rome  you  find 
two  tendencies  on  the  part  of  the  mind  of  man.  There  was, 
first,  an  old-time  tradition  which  placed  the  Golden  Age  of 
humanity  away  back  in  the  past.  The  people  dreamed  of 
a  time  when  Saturn,  the  father  of  gods  and  men,  lived  on 
the  earth,  and  governed  directly  his  children  and  his  people. 
In  that  happy  time  there  was  no  disease,  no  pain,  no  pov- 
erty. There  were  no  class  distinctions.  There  were  no 
wars.  The  evil  of  the  world  was  unknown.  That  was  the 
Golden  Age  which  a  certain  set  of  thinkers  then  placed  far 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion      73 

back  in  the  past.  They  told  how  that  age  was  succeeded 
by  a  bronze  age, —  a  poorer  condition  of  affairs, —  how  the 
gods  left  the  earth,  and  ill  contentions  and  evils  of  every 
kind  began  to  afflict  the  world.  This  was  succeeded  by  the 
age  of  brass,  that  by  the  age  of  iron ;  and  so  the  poor  old 
world  was  supposed  to  be  getting  worse  and  worse,  lower 
and  lower,  from  one  epoch  of  time  to  another. 

But  also  among  these  same  people  there  were  another  set 
of  traditions,  illustrated  sufficiently  for  our  purpose  by  the 
story  of  Prometheus.  According  to  this  the  first  age  of 
humanity  was  its  worst  and  poorest  and  lowest  age.  The 
people  lived  in  abject  poverty  and  misery.  They  were  even 
neglected  on  the  part  of  the  gods,  who  did  not  seem  to  care 
for  them,  but  treated  them  with  contempt.  Prometheus  is 
represented  as  pitying  their  evil  estate,  caring  more  for  them 
than  the  gods  did ;  and  so  he  steals  the  celestial  fire,  and 
comes  down  to  the  world  and  presents  it  to  men,  and  so 
helps  them  to  begin  civilization, —  a  period  of  prosperity  and 
progress.  For  this  he  is  punished  by  the  gods. 

The  point  I  wish  you  to  note  is  that  even  among  the 
Greeks  and  the  Romans  there  were  two  types  of  mind,  one 
of  which  placed  the  Golden  Age  in  the  past,  and  the  other 
of  which  placed  it  in  the  future  as  the  goal  of  man's  en- 
deavor and  growth. 

A  precisely  similar  thing  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament, 
so  that  these  two  types  of  mind  appear  among  the  Hebrews. 
In  one  of  these  we  find  again  the  Golden  Age,  the  perfect 
condition  of  things,  placed  at  the  beginning.  There  was  a 
garden,  and  man  and  woman  were  perfect  in  it.  There  was 
no  labor,  no  toil,  no  pain,  no  sorrow,  no  fear,  no  trouble  of 
any  kind.  But  that  was  followed  by  sin,  evil,  entering  the 
world,  by  their  being  driven  out ;  and  so  the  world  has 


74  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

again  been  going  from  bad  to  worse,  as  the  ages  have  passed 
by. 

On  the  other  hand,  among  the  Hebrews,  as  illustrated  in 
the  writings  of  the  great  prophets,  the  master  minds  of  the 
Hebrew  race,  there  is  the  opposite  belief  manifested.  There 
is  no  fall  of  man,  no  perfect  condition  of  things,  no  Golden 
Age  at  the  beginning,  in  the  prophets.  There  is  none  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  Rather  do  they  look  forward  with  kindling 
eye  and  beating  heart  to  some  grander  thing  that  is  to  be. 

Here  is  this  dual  tradition,  then,  in  the  world,  in  different 
parts  of  the  world, —  this  dual  way  of  looking  at  the  problem 
of  life. 

Now  I  wish  to  place  before  you  the  two  great  contrasted 
theories  of  the  universe.  In  presenting  that  which  has 
been  dominant  for  the  last  two  or  three  thousand  years, —  two 
thousand,  perhaps,  speaking  roughly, —  I  am  quite  well  aware 
that  I  shall  have  to  seem  to  tell  you  what  you  perfectly  well 
know,  what  I  have  said  on  other  occasions ;  but  it  is  neces- 
sary for  me  to  run  over  it,  and  I  will  do  so  as  briefly  as  I 
can,  setting  it  before  you  in  outline  as  a  whole,  so  that  you 
may  see  it  in  contrast  with  the  other  theory  which  I  shall 
then  endeavor  to  set  forth  also  as  a  whole. 

According  to  that  theory  of  the  world,  then,  which  lies 
at  the  foundation,  the  old-time  and  still  generally  accepted 
theory  of  Christendom,  the  world  was  created  in  the  year 
4004  B.C.  It  was  created  in  a  week's  time.  This  was  the 
general  teaching  until  thinkers  were  compelled  to  accept  an- 
other theory  by  the  advances  of  modern  investigation.  The 
world  was  created  inside  of  a  week.  God  got  through,  pro- 
nounced it  good,  and  rested.  Then  in  a  short  period  of 
time  —  we  do  not  know  how  long  —  evil  entered  this  world 
which  God  had  pronounced  perfect.  Satan,  a  real  being, 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Disctission     75, 

the  leader  of  the  hosts  of  the  fallen  angels,  the  traditional 
enemy  of  God,  who  had  fought  him  even  in  his  own  heaven 
and  been  cast  out,  invades  this  fair  earth.  He  seduces  our 
first  parents,  gets  them  to  commit  a  sin  against  God  which 
makes  them  his  enemies,  turns  them  into  rebels  against  his 
just  and  holy  government.  The  world,  then,  is  fallen.  Now 
from  that  day  to  this  the  one  effort  on  the  part  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  this  theory,  has  been  to  deliver  the  world  from 
this  lost  condition.  Jonathan  Edwards,  for  example,  pub- 
lished a  book  called  "The  History  of  Redemption."  He 
conceived  the  entire  history  of  the  world  under  that  title, 
because  the  history  of  the  world,  according  to  this  theory, 
has  been  the  history  of  the  effort  of  God  to  deliver  man 
from  the  effects  of  the  fall. 

Now  let  us  note  the  story  as  it  proceeds  a  little  further. 
The  world  exists  for  —  I  think  I  have  a  date  here  which 
may  interest  you —  1,656  years,  God  meantime  doing  every- 
thing he  could,  by  sending  angels  and  special  messengers 
and  teaching  the  people ;  and  he  had  accomplished  so  little 
that  the  world  was  in  such  a  condition  that  he  was  com- 
pelled to  drown  it.  So  came  the  flood.  After  that,  he 
chooses  one  family,  one  little  family  and  the  descendants 
of  that  family,  one  little  people,  and  bends  all  his  energies 
to  the  education  and  training  of  that  people, —  a  small 
people  inhabiting  a  country  on  the  eastern  coast  of  the 
Mediterranean  Sea  just  about  as  large  as  the  State  of 
Massachusetts. 

For  more  than  two  thousand  years  he  devotes  himself 
to  the  training  of  this  people.  How  does  he  succeed  here? 
He  sends  his  messengers  again,  his  angels,  his  prophets, 
one  after  another.  He  inspires  a  certain  number  of  men 
to  write  a  book  to  deliver  his  will  to  the  people,  fallen  into 


y6  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

such  condition  that  they  are  incapable  of  discovering  the 
truth  for  themselves.  But,  after  all  his  efforts,  they  are  so 
far  from  the  truth  that,  when  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  appears,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  him  except 
to  put  him  to  death.  After  that,  God  sends  the  third 
person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  organize  his 
Church,  spread  his  truth,  convert  men,  bring  them  into  the 
Church,  and  so  fit  them  to  be  saved.  And,  after  two  thou- 
sand years  of  that  kind  of  effort,  what  is  the  result  ?  They 
tell  us  that  not  more  than  a  third  part  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  world  have  heard  anything  about  it,  that  the  majority 
of  those  who  have  heard  about  it  reject  it.  Mr.  Moody  told 
us  last  year  that  in  this  country,  which  we  love  to  think  of 
as  the  most  favored  and  highly  civilized  and  intelligent 
country  in  the  world,  out  of  seventy  millions  of  inhabitants, 
not  more  than  thirty  millions  ever  see  the  inside  of  any  kind 
of  church.  I  do  not  vouch  for  the  accuracy  of  the  statistics. 
I  wish  to  impress  upon  you  the  result  of  this  theory  of  this 
six  thousand  years  of  endeavor  on  the  part  of  God  to  bring 
his  own  children  to  a  knowledge  of  his  own  truth.  The 
upshot  of  it  is  that  the  few,  the  minority,  will  be  saved,  and 
the  great  majority  eternally  lost. 

Now  here  is  one  world  theory,  one  scheme  of  world  his- 
tory which  I  wish  you  to  hold  clearly  and  as  definitely  as 
possible  in  your  minds,  while  I  place  alongside  of  it  another 
theory. 

According  to  this  other,  God  did  not  suddenly  create  the 
world  in  a  week  or  in  a  hundred  thousand  years.  It  is  a 
story  of  continuous  and  eternal  creation.  As  Jesus  said, 
with  fine  and  noble  insight,  "  My  father  worketh  hitherto." 
He  did  not  recognize  that  God  was  resting  on  any  day  or 
through  any  period  of  time. 


Significance  of  tJte  Present  Religious  Discussion    77 

The  world,  then,  has  always  been  in  process  of  creation. 
The  same  forces  at  work  in  accordance  with  substantially 
the  same  laws.  The  world  has  been  millions  of  years  in 
this  process  ;  and  the  process  all  around  us,  if  we  choose  to 
open  our  eyes  and  note  it,  is  still  going  on  with  all  its 
wonder  and  divinity.  And  we  know,  as  we  study  the 
heavens  above  us,  or  around  us  rather,  with  our  telescopes, 
that  there  are  worlds  and  systems  of  worlds  in  process  of 
creation  on  every  hand.  We  are  permitted  to  look  into 
the  divine  workshop  and  observe  the  divine  method. 

The  world,  then,  is  always  in  process  of  creation.  This 
is  the  first  point  in  the  new  theory.  It  follows,  of  course, 
from  this  that  we  are  to  hold  the  story  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  earth,  the  earth  millions  of  years  old,  instead  of  six 
thousand  or  ten  thousand. 

And  then,  in  the  third  place,  it  tells  us  the  story  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  human  race. 

All  scholars,  for  example, —  as  bearing  on  this  I  will  give 
you  just  this  one  illustration, —  know  that  there  was  a  civil- 
ization in  Egypt,  wide-spread,  highly  developed,  with  nobody 
knows  how  many  ages  of  growth  behind  it, —  there  was  this 
civilization  in  Egypt  before  the  world  was  created  according 
to  the  popular  chronology  that  has  been  generally  received 
until  within  a  few  years. 

We  know  that  man  has  been  on  the  earth  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years.  This  is  the  next  point  in  that  story. 

In  the  next  place,  they  tell  us  a  wondrous  tale  of  the 
origin  and  nature  of  man,  tracing  his  natural  development 
from  lower  forms  of  life.  When  I  say  "  natural,"  I  do  not 
wish  you  to  think  for  one  moment  that  I  leave  out  the 
divinity ;  for,  according  to  this  story  of  the  world  which  I 
am  hinting  and  outlining  now,  God  is  infinitely  nearer,  more 


78  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

wonderfully  in  contact  with  us,  than  he  ever  was  in  the  old. 
Natural,  then,  but  divine  at  every  step,  so  that  we  are  see- 
ing God  face  to  face,  if  we  but  think  of  it,  and  are  feeling 
his  touch  every  moment  of  our  lives. 

No  fall  of  man,  then,  on  this  theory.  No  invasion  of 
this  world  by  any  form  of  evil  or  any  evil  person  from  with- 
out. This  story  of  the  fall  of  man  came  into  the  world 
undoubtedly  to  account  in  some  philosophical  fashion  for 
the  existence  of  pain,  of  evil,  and  of  death.  We  account  for 
it  on  this  new  theory  much  more  naturally,  rationally,  more 
honorably  for  God,  more  hopefully  for  man. 

The  history  of  the  world,  then,  since  man  began  has  not 
been  by  any  means  a  history  of  universal  progression. 
Evolution,  however  much  it  may  be  misunderstood  and  mis- 
represented, does  not  mean  the  necessity  of  progress  on  the 
part  of  any  one  person  or  any  one  people,  any  more,  for 
example,  than  the  growth  of  the  human  body  is  inconsistent 
with  the  fact  that  cells  and  composite  parts  of  the  body  are 
in  process  of  decay  and  dissolution  every  hour,  every  mo- 
ment of  our  lives. 

Nations  grow,  advance,  if  they  comply  with  the  laws,  the 
conditions,  of  growth  and  advance ;  and,  if  not,  they  die 
out  and  disappear.  And  so  is  it  of  individuals.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  in  the  presence  of  the  loving,  lifting,  leading 
God,  humanity  in  the  larger  sense  has  been  advancing  from 
the  beginning  of  human  history  until  to-day ;  and  the  grade, 
dim  glimpses  of  which  we  gain  as  we  look  out  toward  the 
future,  is  still  up  and  still  on. 

According  to  this  theory  of  the  universe,  there  does  not 
need  to  be  any  stupendous  breaking  in  of  God  into  his  own 
world  after  any  miraculous  fashion.  We  do  not  need  an  in- 
fallible guide  in  religion  any  more  than  anywhere  else,  un- 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion     79 

less  we  are  in  danger  of  eternal  loss  because  of  an  intellect- 
ual mistake.  We  do  not  need  any  stupendous  miracle  to 
reconcile  God  to  his  own  world ;  for  he  has  always  been 
reconciled.  We  do  not  need  any  miraculous  bridging  of 
any  mythical  gulf ;  for  there  never  has  been  any  gulf.  And 
the  outcome, —  not  as  we  look  forward  are  we  haunted  by 
fearful  anticipations  of  darkness  and  evil ;  as  we  listen,  we 
do  not  ever  hear  the  clanking  of  chains ;  as  we  look,  we 
know  that  the  dimness  that  hangs  over  the  coming  time  is 
not  caused  by  "  the  smoke  of  the  torment  that  ascendeth  up 
forever  and  ever."  It  is  a  story  of  eternal  hope  for  every 
race,  for  every  child  of  man  and  child  of  God. 

Here  are  these  two  theories,  then, —  two  schemes  of  the 
universe  and  of  human  history.  Which  of  them  shall  we 
accept  ? 

I  wish  you  to  note  now,  and  to  note  with  a  little  care, 
that  you  cannot  rationally  accept  a  part  of  one  theory  and 
a  part  of  the  other,  and  so  make  up  a  patchwork  to  suit 
yourselves.  Take,  for  example,  the  one  question,  Is  man 
lost  or  is  he  not  ?  He  is  not  half  lost  or  sort  of  lost :  he  is 
either  lost  or  he  is  not  lost.  Which  is  true  ?  If  he  is  not 
" lost,"  then  he  does  not  need  to  be  "saved."  He  may  need 
something  else  ;  but  he  does  not  need  that,  for  the  two  cor- 
respond and  match  each  other.  Let  us  think,  then,  a  little 
clearly  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  remember  that  the  out- 
come of  the  conflict  between  these  two  theories  must  be  the 
supremacy  of  either  one  or  the  other. 

Now,  before  I  come  to  any  more  fundamental  and  earnest 
treatment  of  the  subject,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  cer- 
tain things  that  are  happening  to  the  old  theory. 

How  much  of  that  old  theory  is  intact  to-day  ?  How 
much  of  it  is  held  even  by  those  who,  being  scholars  and 


8o  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

thinkers,  still  hold  their  allegiance  to  the  old-time  theology  ? 
Let  us  see.  The  story  of  the  sudden  and  finite  creation  of 
the  world  is  completely  gone.  Nobody  holds  that  now  who 
gives  it  any  attention.  They  have  stretched  the  six  days  of 
the  week,  even  those  who  hold  the  accuracy  of  the  Genesis 
account,  into  uncounted  periods  of  time.  So  that  is  gone. 
The  antiquity  of  man  is  conceded  by  everybody  who  has  a 
right  to  have  and  express  an  opinion ;  that  is,  by  everybody 
who  has  given  it  any  study.  Every  competent  and  free 
scholar  knows  to-day  that  the  story  of  the  fall  of  man  and 
the  whole  Eden  story,  is  a  Babylonian  or  a  Persian  legend 
that  came  into  the  life  of  the  Jews  about  the  time  of  their 
captivity,  and  was  not  known  of  till  then  among  them,  and 
did  not  take  hold  on  the  leading  and  highest  minds  of  their 
own  people.  And  there  are,  as  you  know,  hundreds,  if  not 
thousands  of  clergymen  in  all  the  churches  to-day  who  are 
ready  to  concede  that  the  story  of  Eden  is  poetry  or  legend 
or  tradition  :  they  no  longer  treat  it  as  serious  history.  And 
yet,  as  I  have  said  a  good  many  times,  they  go  on  as  though 
nothing  had  happened,  although  the  foundation  of  their 
house  has  been  removed.  Only  theories  which  stand  in  the 
air  can  thus  defy  the  law  of  gravitation. 

Nobody  to-day  who  has  a  right  to  have  an  opinion  be- 
lieves that  God  ever  drowned  the  world.  That  is  gone.  As 
to  the  question  as  to  whether  we  have  an  infallible  book  to 
guide  us  in  religious  matters,  there  are  very  few  scholars  in 
any  church  to-day,  so  far  as  my  investigations  have  led, 
who  hold  any  such  opinion.  That  is  gone  ;  and  the  Bible  — 
the  Old  Testament,  at  any  rate  —  is  coming  to  be  recognized, 
not  as  infallible  revelation,  but  as  ancient  literature, —  im- 
mensely interesting,  full  of  instruction,  but  not  as  an  unques- 
tioned guide  in  any  department  of  life. 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion     8 1 

* 

There  are  many  among  the  nominally  old  churches  who 
are  coming  to  hold  a  very  different  theory  concerning  Jesus, — 
his  life,  his  death,  and  the  effect  of  his  death  on  the  sal- 
vation of  man.  More  reasonable  ideas  are  prevailing  here. 
In  every  direction  also  there  are  thousands  on  thousands 
who  are  becoming  freed  from  that  horrible  incubus  of  fear 
as  they  look  out  towards  the  future. 

As  you  note  then,  point  after  point  of  this  old  scheme  of 
the  universe  is  disappearing,  being  superseded  by  something 
else ;  until  I  am  astonished,  as  I  converse  with  friends  in  the 
other  churches,  to  find  how  little  of  it  is  really  left,  how  little 
of  it  men  are  ready,  out  and  out,  to  defend.  In  conversation 
with  an  Episcopal  clergyman  a  short  time  ago  on  theological 
questions,  we  agreed  so  well  that  I  laughingly  said  I  saw  no 
reason  why  I  should  not  become  a  clergyman  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church. 

Now,  friends,  what  I  wish  you  to  note  is  this :  that  there 
is  not  one  single  point  in  this  old  scheme  of  the  universe 
that  can  be  reasonably  defended  to-day.  It  is  passing  away 
from  intelligent,  cultivated  human  thought. 

And  note  another  thing  :  it  is  a  scheme  which  is  a  discredit 
to  the  thought  of  God.  It  is  unjust.  It  is  dishonorable  in  its 
moral  and  religious  implications.  It  is  pessimistic  and  hope- 
less in  its  outlook  for  the  race.  It  does  not  explain  the 
problems  of  human  nature  and  human  experience  half  as 
well  as  the  other  theory  does,  even  if  it  could  be  demon- 
strated as  truth. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  other.  The  other  theory  is  mag- 
nificent in  its  proportions.  It  is  grand  in  its  conception  and 
in  its  age-long  sweep  and  range.  It  is  worthy  of  the  grand- 
est thought  of  God  we  can  frame ;  and  we  cannot  imagine 
any  increase  or  heightening  or  deepening  of  that  thought 


82  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

which  would  reach  beyond  the  limits  of  this  conception  of 
the  universe, —  magnificent  in  its  thought  of  God.  And, 
instead  of  being  pessimistic  and  hopeless  in  its  outlook  for 
man,  it  is  full  of  hope,  of  life,  of  inspiration,  of  cheer,  some- 
thing for  which  we  well  may  break  out  into  songs  of  glad- 
ness as  we  contemplate. 

And,  then,  it  is  true.  There  is  not  one  single  feature  of 
it,  or  point  in  it,  that  has  not  in  the  main  been  scientifically 
demonstrated  to  be  God's  truth.  I  make  this  statement, 
and  challenge  the  contradiction  of  the  world.  Whatever 
breaks  there  may  be  in  the  evidence  for  this  second  theory 
that  I  have  outlined,  every  single  scrap  and  particle  of  evi- 
dence that  there  is  in  the  universe  is  in  its  favor ;  and  there 
is  not  one  single  scrap  or  particle  of  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
other.  As  I  say,  I  challenge  the  contradiction  of  the 
scholarly  world  to  that  statement. 

It  is  true  then.  Being  true,  it  is  God's  truth,  God's  theory 
of  things,  the  outline  of  human  history  as  God  has  laid  it 
down  for  us ;  and,  as  we  trace  it,  like  Kepler,  we  may  say, 
"  O  God,  I  think  over  again  thy  thoughts  after  Thee." 

Now  I  wish  you  to  note  one  or  two  things  concerning  this 
a  little  further.  There  are  a  great  may  persons  who  shrink 
from  accepting  new  ideas  because  they  are  haunted  with  the 
fear  that  in  some  way  something  precious,  something  sweet, 
something  noble,  something  inspiring  that  they  have  asso- 
ciated with  the  past,  is  going  to  be  lost.  But  think,  friends. 
When  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  the  universe  gave  way  to  the 
Copernican,  not  only  did  the  Copernican  have  the  advan- 
tage of  being  true,  but  not  one  single  star  in  heaven  was 
put  out  or  even  dimmed  its  light.  All  of  them  looked 
down  upon  us  with  an  added  magnificence  and  a  fresher 
glow,  because  we  felt  at  last  we  were  standing  face  to  face 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion      83 

with  the  truth  of  things,  and  not  with  a  fallible  theory  of 
man. 

Do  not  be  afraid,  then,  that  any  of  the  sanctities,  any  of 
the  devoutness,  any  of  the  tenderness,  any  of  the  sweet 
sentiments,  any  of  the  loves,  any  of  the  charities,  any  of  the 
worships  of  the  past,  are  in  danger  of  being  lost.  Why, 
these,  friends,  are  the  summed-up  result  of  all  the  world's 
finest  and  sweetest  achievement  up  to  this  hour ;  and  our 
theories  are  only  vessels  in  which  we  carry  the  precious 
treasure. 

I  am  interested  in  having  you  see  the  truth  of  this  uni- 
verse, because  I  believe  you  will  worship  God  more  de- 
voutly and  love  man  more  truly  and  consecrate  yourselves 
more  unreservedly  to  the  highest  and  noblest  ends,  when 
you  can  think  thoughts  of  God  that  kindle  aspiration  and 
worship,  and  thoughts  of  men  as  children  of  God  that  make 
it  grandly  worth  your  while  to  live  and  die  for  them. 

Do  you  think  there  is  going  to  be  a  poorer  religion  than 
there  has  been  in  the  past  ?  I  look  to  the  time  when  we 
shall  have  a  church  as  wide  as  the  horizon,  domed  by  the 
blue,  lighted  by  the  sun,  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  the 
Eternal  Truth  of  the  Father ;  a  church  in  which  all  men 
shall  be  recognized  as  brothers,  of  whatever  sect  or  what- 
ever religion,  in  which  all  shall  kneel  and  chant  or  lisp 
their  worship  according  as  they  are  able, —  the  worship  of 
the  one  Father,  cheered  and  inspired  by  the  one  universal 
and  eternal  hope  for  man. 

Do  not  be  afraid  of  the  truth,  then,  for  fear  something 
precious  is  going  to  be  lost  out  of  human  life.  Evolution 
never  gives  up  anything  of  the  past  that  is  worth  keeping. 
It  simply  carries  it  on,  and  moulds  it  into  ever  higher  and 
finer  shapes  for  the  service  of  man. 


84  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

I  intimated  a  moment  ago  —  I  wish  to  touch  on  this  briefly 
for  the  sake  of  clearness  —  that  man,  according  to  this  new 
theory,  does  not  need  to  be  saved, —  in  the  theological  sense, 
of  course,  I  mean, —  because  he  is  not  lost.  He  has  never 
been  far  away  from  the  Father,  never  been  beyond  the 
reach  of  his  hand,  never  been  beyond  the  touch  of  his  love 
and  care.  What  does  he  need  ?  He  needs  to  be  trained, 
he  needs  to  be  educated,  he  needs  to  be  developed  for 
man  is  just  as  naturally  religious  as  he  is  musical  or  artistic, 
as  he  is  interested  in  problems  of  government  or  econom- 
ics, or  any  of  the  great  problems  that  touch  the  welfare  of 
the  world. 

Man  needs  churches,  then,  or  societies  of  those  interested 
in  the  higher  life  of  the  time,  needs  services,  needs  all 
these  things  that  kindle  and  train  and  develop  and  lift  him 
up  out  of  the  animal  into  the  spiritual  and  divine  nature 
which  is  in  every  one  of  us.  So  that  none  of  the  worships, 
none  of  the  religious  forms  of  the  world  that  are  of  any 
value,  are  ever  going  to  be  cast  aside  or  left  behind. 

But  there  is  one  very  important  point  that  I  must  deal 
with  for  just  a  little  while.  I  will  be  as  brief  as  I  can. 

I  have  been  very  much  surprised  to  note  certain  things 
that  have  come  out  in  the  recent  religious  discussions.  The 
editor  of  the  Brooklyn  Eagle,  for  example,  has  deprecated 
all  talk  in  regard  to  matters  of  this  sort,  saying,  in  effect : 
What  difference  does  it  make  ?  What  is  involved  that  is  of 
any  importance  ?  Why  not  let  everybody  worship  and  be- 
lieve as  he  pleases  ?  A  writer  in  the  New  York  Times  — 
I  think  perhaps  more  than  one,  but  one  specially  I  have  in 
mind  —  has  said  substantially  the  same  thing.  It  does  not 
make  any  difference.  Let  people  worship  as  they  please,  let 
them  believe  as  they  please,  let  them  go  their  own  way. 
What  difference  does  it  make  ? 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion     85 

Friends,  it  makes  no  difference  at  all,  provided  there  is 
no  such  thing  in  the  world  as  religious  truth.  If  there 
is,  it  makes  all  difference.  Let  us  take  this  "  Don't  care  " 
and  "  No  matter "  theory  for  a  moment,  and  in  the  light 
of  it  consider  a  few  of  the  grandest  lives  of  the  world. 

If  it  makes  no  difference  what  a  man  believes  in  religion 
or  how  he  worships  or  what  he  tries  to  do,  how  does  it 
happen  that  we  Unitarians,  for  example,  glorify  Theodore 
Parker,  and  count  him  a  great  moral  and  intellectual  hero  ? 
Why  should  he  have  made  himself  so  unpopular  as  to  be 
cast  out  even  of  the  Unitarian  fellowship  ?  Was  he  con- 
tending for  nothing  ?  Was  he  a  fool  ?  was  he  making  him- 
self uncomfortable  over  imaginary  distinctions  ?  Perhaps  ; 
but,  then,  why  are  we  foolish  enough  to  honor  him? 

Why  is  it  that  we  glorify  Channing,  who  at  an  earlier 
period  was  cast  out  of  the  best  religious  society  of  the 
world  for  what  he  believed  to  be  a  great  principle  ?  Why 
is  it  to-day  that  we  lift  John  Wesley  on  such  a  lofty  pedestal 
of  admiration  ?  He  left  the  Church  of  England,  or  was  cast 
out  of  it,  went  among  the  poor,  preached  a  great  religious 
reform,  led  a  magnificent  crusade,  teaching  a  higher  and 
grander  spiritual  religion, —  a  religion  of  heart,  of  life,  of 
character,  against  the  mere  formalism  of  the  Church  of  his 
time.  Was  he  contending  about  airy  nothings  without  local 
habitation  or  a  name  ?  If  so,  why  are  we  so  foolish  as  to 
admire  him  ? 

Go  back  further  to  Martin  Luther,  putting  himself  in  dan- 
ger of  his  life,  standing  against  banded  Europe,  and  saying, 
"  Here  I  stand :  God  help  me,  I  can  do  no  otherwise ! " 
What  is  the  use  ?  What  did  he  do  it  for  ?  If  it  made  no 
difference  whether  a  man  worshipped  God  intelligently  or 
according  to  the  things  Luther  thought  all  wrong,  what  was 


86  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

the  difference  ?  What  was  he  contending  about,  and  why 
does  the  world  bow  down  to  him  with  reverence  and  honor  ? 

Why  are  we  fools  enough  to  honor  the  men  who  were 
burned  at  Oxford  ?  Why  do  we  honor  to-day  the  line  of 
saints  and  martyrs  ?  Why  do  we  look  upon  Savonarola 
with  such  admiration  ? 

To  go  back  still  farther,  why  was  it  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians were  ready  to  suffer  torture,  to  be  racked,  to  be  per- 
secuted, to  be  thrown  into  kettles  of  boiling  oil,  to  be  cast 
to  the  wild  beasts  in  the  arena  ?  Were  they  contending  for 
nothing  at  all  ?  If  it  makes  no  difference,  why  were  they 
casting  themselves  away  in  this  Quixotic  and  foolish  fash- 
ion ?  and,  if  there  was  nothing  involved,  how  is  it  that  these 
names  shine  as  stars  in  the  religious  firmament  of  the 
world's  worship  ? 

Go  to  the  time  of  Jesus  himself.  A  young  Nazarene,  he 
leaves  his  home  in  Nazareth,  joins  the  fortunes  of  John  the 
Baptist.  After  John  the  Baptist  had  been  fool  enough  to 
get  his  head  cut  off  contending  for  his  theory,  Jesus  takes 
up  his  work,  dares  to  speak  against  the  temple,  dares  to 
challenge  the  righteousness  of  the  most  righteous  men  of 
their  time,  dares  at  last  to  stand  so  firmly  that  he  is  taken 
out  one  afternoon  and  hung  upon  a  tree  on  the  hill  beyond 
the  walls  of  the  city, —  the  one  supreme  piece  of  folly  in 
the  history  of  the  world  from  the  "  Does  not  make  any 
difference  "  point  of  view. 

Is  there  any  truth  involved  ?  Does  it  touch  the  living  or 
the  welfare  of  the  world  ?  If  not,  why,  then,  are  these  looked 
upon  as  the  grandest  figures  since  the  world  began  ?  Are 
all  men  fools  for  admiring  them, —  except  these  wiseacres 
who  stand  for  the  theory  that  it  makes  no  difference  and 
who  ought  not  to  admire  them  at  all  ? 


Significance  of  tJie  Present  Religious  Discussion      87 

Suppose  you  apply  the  principle  in  other  departments  of 
life.  We  had  a  tremendous  issue  in  this  city  and  country 
last  fall  over  the  financial  question.  Would  it  have  made 
any  difference  which  side  won  ?  If  it  was  just  as  well  one 
way  as  the  other,  why  not  let  the  people  who  clamored  for 
silver  have  silver,  those  who  wanted  greenbacks  have  green- 
backs, and  those  who  desired  gold  have  gold?  What  was 
the  use  of  troubling  about  it  ?  We  thought  there  were  prin- 
ciples involved. 

Take  it  in  the  economic  world, —  the  individualist  here 
with  his  theory,  the  socialist  here  with  his  ;  theories  outlined 
like  those  in  Edward  Bellamy's  "  Looking  Backward " ;  a 
hundred  advancers  of  these  different  schemes,  each  contend- 
ing for  mastery.  And  we  feel  that  the  welfare  of  civiliza- 
tion is  at  stake ;  and  we  stand  for  our  great  principles. 
Take  it  in  politics.  What  difference  does  it  make  whether 
the  theories  embodied  in  the  reign  of  the  Czar  of  Russia 
prevail,  or  these  here  in  the  United  States  which  we  are  so 
foolish  as  to  laud  and  pride  ourselves  so  much  about  ? 
What  did  we  have  a  Civil  War  for,  wasting  billions  of 
money  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  lives  ?  Are  these 
great  human  contests  about  nothing  at  all  ? 

Friends,  think  one  moment.  Either  man  is  a  child  of 
God  or  he  is  not.  Man  fell  at  the  beginning  of  his  history, 
and  came  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God,  or  he  did  not. 
God  has  sent  angels,  breaking  into  his  natural  order  of  the 
world,  or  he  has  not.  He  has  created  an  infallible  book  or 
he  has  not.  He  has  organized  an  infallible  church  that  has 
authority  to  guide  and  teach  the  world  or  he  has  not.  He 
himself  came  down  to  earth  in  the  form  of  a  man  once  and 
for  all,  and  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  or  he  did  not. 


88  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

These  are  questions  of  historic  fact.  Does  it  make  no 
difference  what  we  believe  about  them  ?  If  man  is  a  fallen 
being,  condemned  to  eternal  death,  and  God  has  provided 
only  one  way  for  his  escape  and  salvation,  then  it  makes  an 
infinite  and  eternal  difference  as  to  whether  we  know  it  or 
believe  it  or  act  on  it  or  not.  If  the  majority  of  the 
human  race  is  doomed  to  eternal  torture  unless  it  escapes 
through  certain  prescribed  conditions,  does  it  make  any 
difference  whether  we  know  it  or  not  ? 

And,  if  he  is  not  so  doomed,  does  it  make  no  difference 
to  the  heart  and  hope,  the  life,  the  cheer,  the  courage  and 
inspiration  of  man,  whether  or  not  we  lift  from  the  brain 
and  the  heart  this  horrible  incubus  of  dread  and  fear  ? 

Here  are  all  these  churches  with  their  wealth,  their  intel- 
ligence, their  enthusiasm,  their  inspiration,  ready  to  do 
something  for  humanity.  Does  it  make  any  difference 
whether  they  are  doing  the  right  thing  for  it  or  not  ?  We 
could  revolutionize  the  world  if  we  could  be  guided  by  intel- 
ligence, and  find  out  what  man  really  needs,  and  devote  our- 
selves to  the  accomplishment  of  what  that  is.  The  waste, 
the  waste,  the  waste  of  money  and  thought  and  energy  and 
time  and  inspiration  poured  into  wrong  channels,  unguided 
by  intelligence,  directed  towards  things  that  do  not  need  to 
be  done,  and  away  from  things  that  do  need  to  be  done ! 

These  are  the  questions  involved  in  discussions  as  to 
what  God  is  and  has  done  and  is  going  to  do  with  his 
world. 

The  one  thing  we  need,  then,  almost  more  than  all  others 
just  now,  is  to  be  led  by  the  truth,  and  have  the  truth  make 
us  free  from  the  errors  and  the  burdens  of  the  past,  so  that 
we  may  place  ourselves  truly  at  the  disposal  of  God  for  the 
service  of  our  fellows. 


Significance  of  the  Present  Religious  Discussion     89 

0  star  of  truth  down-shining, 
Through  clouds  of  doubt  and  fear, 

1  ask  but  'neath  your  guidance 

My  pathway  may  appear. 
However  long  the  journey, 

How  hard  soe'er  it  be, 
Though  I  be  lone  and  weary, 

Lead  on,  I'll  follow  thee. 

I  know  thy  blessed  radiance 

Can  never  lead  astray, 
However  ancient  custom 

May  tread  some  other  way. 
E'en  if  through  untrod  deserts 

Or  over  trackless  sea, 
Though  I  be  lone  and  weary, 

Lead  on,  I'll  follow  thee. 

The  bleeding  feet  of  martyrs 

Thy  toilsome  road  have  trod  ; 
But  fires  of  human  passion 

May  lead  the  way  to  God. 
Then,  though  my  feet  should  falter, 

While  I  thy  beams  can  see, 
Though  I  be  lone  and  weary, 

Lead  on,  I'll  follow  thee. 

Though  loving  friends  forsake  me 

Or  plead  with  me  in  tears, 
Though  angry  foes  may  threaten 

To  shake  my  soul  with  fears, 
Still  to  my  high  allegiance 

I  must  not  faithless  be, 
Through  life  or  death,  forever 

Lead  on,  I'll  follow  thee. 


DOUBT  AND  FAITH  — BOTH  HOLY. 


THE  object  of  all  thinking  is  the  discovery  of  truth.  And 
truth  for  us, —  what  is  that  ?  It  is  the  reality  of  things  as 
related  to  us.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  metaphysical 
discussion  first  and  last  as  to  what  things  are  "in  them- 
selves." It  seems  to  me  that  this,  if  it  were  possible  to  find 
it  out,  might  be  an  interesting  matter,  might  satisfy  our  curi- 
osity, but  is  of  absolutely  no  practical  importance  to  us.  I 
do  not  believe  that  we  can  find  out  what  things  are  in  them- 
selves, in  the  first  place ;  and  I  do  not  believe  that,  if  we 
could,  it  would  be  of  any  service  to  us.  What  we  want  to 
know  is  what  things  are  as  related  to  us,  as  touching  us,  as 
bearing  upon  our  life,  upon  our  practical  affairs. 

Once  more :  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  discussion  as 
to  whether  the  universe  is  really  what  it  appears  to  be  to  us. 
They  tell  us  that  it  is  quite  another  thing  from  the  point 
of  view  of  other  creatures,  to  beings  differently  constituted 
from  ourselves.  Again,  all  this  may  be.  It  might  be  in- 
teresting to  me,  for  example,  to  look  at  the  world  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  fly  or  of  the  bird  or  some  one  of  the 
animals ;  but,  again,  while  it  might  satisfy  my  curiosity,  it 
could  be  of  no  practical  importance  to  me.  It  might  be 
very  interesting  to  me  to  know  how  the  universe  looks  from 
the  point  of  view  of  an  angel.  But,  so  long  as  I  am  not  an 
angel,  but  a  man,  what  I  need  to  know  is  what  the  universe 
is  as  related  to  man. 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  9 1 

So  truth,  I  say,  then,  is  the  reality  of  things  as  related 
to  us. 

I  must  make  another  remark  here,  in  order  perfectly  to 
clear  the  way.  Philosophers  and  scientific  men,  a  certain 
class  of  them,  are  perpetually  warning  us  of  the  dangers  of 
being  anthropomorphic.  Some  one  has  said,  "  Man  never 
knows  how  anthropomorphic  he  is."  This  means,  as  you 
know,  that  we  look  at  things  from  the  point  of  view  of  our- 
selves. We  see  things  as  men,  as  anthropoi.  This  has 
been  erected  in  certain  quarters  into  a  good  deal  of  a  bug- 
bear in  the  way  of  thinking.  We  are  told  we  can  never 
know  the  universe  really,  because  we  shape  everything  into 
our  own  likeness,  we  are  anthropomorphic,  we  look  at  every- 
thing from  the  point  of  view  of  men. 

I  grant  the  charge ;  but,  instead  of  being  frightened  by 
it,  I  accept  it  with  content.  How  else  should  we  look  at 
things  except  from  the  point  of  view  of  men,  since  we  are 
men  ?  We  cannot  look  at  them  in  any  other  way.  Let  us 
be,  then,  anthropomorphic.  The  only  thing  we  need  to 
guard  against  is  this :  we  must  not  assume  that  we  have 
exhausted  the  universe,  and  that  we  know  it  all.  This  is 
the  evil  of  a  certain  type  of  anthropomorphism.  But  I  can- 
not understand  why  it  is  important  for  us  to  be  anything 
else  but  anthropomorphic.  I  want  to  know  how  things  look 
to  a  man,  what  things  are  to  a  man,  how  things  affect  a 
man,  how  I  am  to  deal  with  things,  being  a  man. 

This  is  the  only  matter,  let  me  repeat  again,  which  is  of 
any  practical  importance  to  us,  until  we  become  something 
other  than  men. 

Truth,  then,  the  truth  that  we  desire  to  find,  is  the  re- 
ality of  things  as  related  to  us.  Now  doubt  and  faith  are 
attitudes  of  mind,  and  are  neither  good  nor  bad  in  them- 


92  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

selves,  either  of  them.  They  are  of  value  only  as  they  help 
us  in  the  discovery  of  this  reality  about  which  I  have  been 
speaking.  If  a  certain  type  of  doubt  stands  in  our  way  in 
seeking  for  truth,  then  that  doubt  so  far  is  evil.  If  a  cer- 
tain something,  called  faith,  stands  in  the  way  of  our  seek- 
ing frankly  and  fearlessly  for  the  truth,  that  is  evil.  If 
doubt  helps  us  to  find  truth,  it  is  good :  if  faith  helps  us  to 
find  truth,  it  is  good.  But  the  only  use  of  either  of  them  is 
to  help  us  discover  and  live  the  truth. 

The  attitude  of  the  Church  —  and  by  the  Church  I  mean 
the  historic  Church  of  the  past  —  towards  doubt  and  faith  is 
well  known  to  us.  It  has  condemned  doubt  almost  univer- 
sally as  something  evil,  sinful.  It  has  extolled  faith  as 
something  almost  universally  good.  But  in  my  judgment  — 
and  I  will  ask  you  when  I  get  through,  perhaps,  to  consider 
as  to  whether  you  do  not  agree  with  me  —  the  trouble  with 
the  human  mind  up  to  the  present  time  has  not  been  a  too 
great  readiness  to  doubt :  it  has  been  a  too  great  inclination 
to  believe.  There  has  been  too  much  of  what  has  been 
called  —  perhaps  by  the  time  I  am  through  you  will 
think  miscalled  —  faith;  and  there  has  been  too  little  of 
honest,  fearless,  earnest  doubt.  This  is  perfectly  natural, 
when  you  consider  how  the  world  begins,  and  the  steps  by 
which  it  advances. 

Let  us  take  as  an  illustration  the  state  of  mind  of  a  child. 
A  child  at  first  does  not  doubt, —  does  not  doubt  anything. 
It  is  ready  to  believe  almost  anything  that  father,  mother, 
nurse,  playmate,  may  say  to  it.  And  why?  In  the  first 
place  it  has  had  no  experience  yet  of  anything  but  the  truth 
being  told  it ;  and  in  the  next  place  it  lives  in  a  world  where 
there  are  no  canons  or  standards  of  probability.  In  the 
child-world  there  are  no  laws,  there  are  no  impossibilities, 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Botk  Holy  93 

there  is  nothing  in  the  way  of  anything  happening.  The 
child  mind  does  not  say,  in  answer  to  some  statement, 
Why,  this  does  not  seem  reasonable.  The  child's  reason 
is  not  yet  developed  into  any  practical  activity.  The  child 
does  not  say,  Why,  this  cannot  be,  because  there  is  such  a 
force  or  such  a  law  that  would  be  contravened  by  it.  The 
child  knows  nothing  about  these  forces  or  laws :  it  is  a 
sort  of  a  Jack-and-the- Beanstalk  world.  The  beanstalk  can 
grow  any  number  of  feet  over  night  in  the  world  in 
which  the  child  lives.  Anything  is  possible.  If  father 
and  mother  and  nurse  tell  the  child  about  Santa  Glaus  com- 
ing down  the  chimney  with  a  pack  of  toys  on  his  back,  it 
does  not  occur  to  the  child  to  note  the  fact  that  the  chimney 
flue  is  no  more  than  six  inches  in  diameter,  and  that  Santa 
Claus  and  his  pack  could  not  possibly  pass  through  such  an 
opening.  All  this  is  beyond  the  range  or  thought  of  the 
stage  of  development  at  which  the  child  has  arrived. 

So  in  the  childhood  world.  As  I  said,  anything  may 
happen.  But  you  will  note,  beautiful,  sunny,  lovely  as  this 
childhood  world  is  as  a  phase  of  experience,  as  a  stage  of  de- 
velopment, sweet  as  may  be  the  memory  of  it,  yet,  if  the 
child  is  ever  to  grow  to  manhood,  is  ever  to  be  anything, 
ever  to  do  anything,  it  must  outgrow  this  Jack-and-the-Bean- 
stalk  world,  this  Santa  Claus  world,  this  world  in  which  any- 
thing may  happen,  and  must  begin  to  doubt,  begin  to  ques- 
tion, begin  to  test  things,  to  prove  things,  find  out  what  is 
real  and  what  is  unreal,  what  is  true  and  what  is  untrue, 
must  measure  itself  against  the  realities  of  things,  learn  to 
recognize  the  real  forces  and  the  laws  according  to  which  they 
operate,  so  as  to  deal  with  them,  obey  them,  make  them 
serve  him,  enable  him  to  create  character  and  to  create  a  new 
type  of  civilization,  new  things  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 


94  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Now  what  is  true  of  each  individual  child  has  been  true  of 
the  race.  The  world  started  in  childhood ;  and  for  thousands 
of  years  it  believed  very  easily,  it  believed  altogether  too 
much  for  its  good,  it  believed  altogether  too  readily.  Natu- 
rally, perhaps,  necessary  in  that  stage  of  its  development ; 
but  so  long  as  it  remained  in  that  stage  there  was  no  pos- 
sibility of  its  becoming  master  of  the  earth. 

Note,  for  example,  the  state  of  mind  of  the  old  Hebrews. 
I  use  them  merely  as  an  illustration,  because  you  are  familiar 
with  their  story  as  told  in  the  Old  Testament.  Similar  things 
are  true  of  every  race  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  They  knew 
nothing  about  the  real  nature  of  this  universe.  They  knew 
nothing  about  natural  forces  working  in  accordance  with 
what  we  call  natural  laws.  Consequently,  they  lived  in  a 
child-world,  a  world  of  magic  and  miracle,  a  world  in  which 
anything  might  happen.  It  did  not  trouble  one  of  the 
people  of  that  time  to  be  told  that,  in  answer  to  the  prayer 
of  one  of  the  prophets,  an  axe-head  which  had  sunk  in  the 
water  rose  and  floated  on  the  surface.  There  were  no 
natural  laws  in  his  mind  contradicted  by  an  asserted  fact 
like  that.  It  never  occurred  to  him  to  be  troubled  about  it. 
There  was  nothing  very  startling  to  him  in  being  told  that 
the  sun  stood  still  for  an  hour  or  two  to  enable  a  general  to 
finish  a  battle  in  which  he  was  engaged.  He  did  not  know 
enough  about  the  universe  to  see  what  tremendous  con- 
sequences would  be  involved  in  the  possibility  of  a  thing 
like  that.  He  was  not  troubled  when  you  told  him  that  a 
man  had  been  swallowed  by  a  great  fish,  and  had  lived  for 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  its  stomach,  and  had  come 
out  uninjured.  There  was  no  improbability  in  it  to  him. 
Simply,  a  question  as  to  whether  God  had  chosen  to  have 
the  fish  large  enough  so  that  it  could  swallow  him.  To  be 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  95 

told  again  that  a  human  body  that  could  eat  food  and  digest 
it,  a  body  like  ours,  might  rise  into  the  air  and  pass  out  of 
sight  into  some  invisible  heaven,  not  very  far  away, —  there 
was  nothing  incredible  about  it.  He  knew  nothing  about  the 
atmosphere,  limited  in  its  range  so  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  breathe  beyond  a  certain  distance  from  the  planet. 
He  knew  nothing  about  the  intense  cold  that  would  make 
life  impossible  just  a  little  way  above  the  surface. 

The  world  in  which  our  forefathers  lived  until  modern 
times  was  just  this  magic,  Jack-and-the-Beanstalk  world, — 
a  world  without  any  impossibilities  in  it,  without  any  im- 
probabilities in  it.  All  this  thought  of  the  true  and  the 
untrue,  the  possible  and  the  impossible,  the  probable  and 
the  improbable,  is  the  result  of  the  fact  that  man  has 
grown  up,  has  left  his  childhood  behind  him,  has  begun 
to  think,  has  begun  to  study,  has  begun  to  search  for  re- 
ality, to  find  out  the  nature  of  the  world  in  which  he  lives, 
the  forces  with  which  he  must  deal,  to  understand  the  uni- 
verse at  least  in  some  narrow  range,  measured  by  his  so-far 
experience. 

The  world,  then,  until  modern  times  has  believed  too 
readily,  has  accepted  things  too  easily.  Let  us  note,  for 
example,  what  have  been  called  by  way  of  pre-eminence  the 
Ages  of  Faith,  the  Middle  Ages,  the  age,  say,  from  the 
seventh  or  eighth  century  until  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth. 
What  was  characteristic  of  those  ages  ?  Were  they  grand, 
noble  ?  They  were  ages  of  ignorance,  of  superstition,  of 
cruelty,  of  immorality,  of  poverty,  of  tyranny,  of  degradation. 
Almost  everything  existed  that  men  would  no  longer  bear 
to-day ;  and  hardly  any  of  the  grand  things  that  characterize 
modern  civilization  had  then  been  heard  of. 

Where  did  this  modern  civilization  of  ours  begin  ?     Did  it 


96  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

ever  occur  to  you  that  it  began  when  men  began  to  doubt  ? 
It  began,  we  say,  with  the  Renaissance.  What  was  the 
Renaissance  ?  The  Renaissance  was  the  birth  of  doubt,  the 
birth  of  question,  the  demand  on  the  part  of  men,  who 
began  to  wake  up  and  think,  for  evidence.  It  was  the  be- 
ginning of  the  scientific  age,  the  birth  of  the  scientific  spirit 
which  has  renovated,  re-created,  uplifted  the  world.  Men 
began  to  think,  to  look  about  them,  and  to  prove  all  things. 
And  instead  of  holding  fast  all  things,  as  they  had  been 
doing  in  the  past,  they  began  to  hold  fast  only  the  things 
which  they  found  by  experience,  and  after  testing  and  trial, 
to  be  good. 

Here  began,  then,  the  civilization  of  the  world ;  and  all 
that  is  finest  and  highest  in  industry,  in  education,  in  dis- 
covery, in  the  whole  external  civilization  of  the  world,  came 
in  with  the  coming  of  this  spirit  that  questions  and  that 
asks  for  proof. 

I  do  not  wish  you  to  understand  me  as  supposing  that  all 
kinds  of  doubt  are  good,  equally  good.  The  Church,  as  I 
said  a  little  while  ago,  has  been  accustomed  to  teach  us  that 
doubt  was  wrong ;  and  there  are  certain  kinds  of  doubt  that 
are  morally  wrong,  certain  kinds  of  doubt  that  are  disastrous 
to  the  highest  and  finest  life  of  the  world. 

I  wish  now  to  analyze  a  little  and  define  and  make  clear 
these  distinctions,  that  you  may  see  the  kind  of  doubt  which 
is  evil  and  the  kind  of  doubt  which  is  good. 

There  are  doubts  which  spring  out  of  the  fact  that  men, 
under  the  influence  of  personal  interest,  as  they  suppose,  or 
strong  desire,  wish  to  follow  certain  courses,  wish  to  walk  in 
certain  paths ;  and  they  doubt  and  question  the  laws,  moral 
or  mental,  religious  or  what  not,  which  stand  in  their  way, 
which  would  prohibit  their  having  their  will.  As  an  illustra- 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  97 

tion  of  what  I  mean,  suppose  a  man  is  engaged  in  a  certain 
kind  of  business,  or  wishes  to  manage  his  business  in  a  cer- 
tain kind  of  way.  He  suspects,  if  he  stops  and  thinks 
about  it,  that  the  interests  of  other  people  may  be  involved, 
that  the  way  in  which  he  wants  to  conduct  his  business  is  a 
selfish  way,  that  the  interests  of  other  people  may  be  in- 
jured, that  the  world  as  a  whole  may  not  be  as  well  off ;  but 
it  seems  to  be  for  his  own  advantage. 

Now  it  is  very  difficult,  indeed,  for  you  to  persuade  a  man 
that  he  ought  to  do  right  under  such  circumstances.  He  is 
ready  to  doubt  and  question  as  to  whether  these  laws  of 
right  are  imperative,  whether  they  are  divine,  whether  they 
may  not  be  waived  one  side  in  the  interest  of  the  thing 
which  he  desires  to  do.  So  you  must  guard  yourself  very 
carefully,  no  matter  what  the  department  of  life  may  be  that 
you  are  facing,  if  you  find  yourself  doubting  under  the  im- 
pulse of  your  own  wishes,  if  you  are  trying  to  argue  yourself 
into  the  belief  that  you  may  be  permitted  to  do  something 
which  you  very  much  want  to  do. 

Be  suspicious  of  your  doubts,  then,  and  remember  that 
probably  they  are  wrong.  Great  moral  questions  may  be 
involved,  and  doubt  may  mean  wreck  here. 

There  is  another  field  where  doubt  is  dangerous  and  pre- 
sumably an  evil.  You  will  find  most  people,  in  regard  to 
any  question  which  they  have  considered  or  which  has 
touched  them  seriously,  with  their  minds  already  made  up. 
They  have  some  sort  of  a  persuasion  about  it,  they  have  a 
theory  which  they  have  accepted  ;  and,  if  you  bring  them  a 
truth  with  ever  such  overwhelming  credentials  which  clashes 
with  this  preconceived  idea  or  prejudice,  the  chances  are 
that  it  would  be  met  with  doubt,  with  denial, —  not  a  clear- 
cut,  intelligent,  well-balanced  doubt,  but  a  doubt  that 


98  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

springs  out  of  the  unwillingness  that  a  man  feels  to  recon- 
struct his  theory. 

Let  me  give  you  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean,  and  this 
away  off  in  another  department  of  life  from  our  own,  so  that 
it  will  not  clash  with  any  of  your  particular  prejudices.  Sir 
Isaac  Newton  won  a  great  and  world-wide  renown,  and 
magnificently  deserved,  by  his  grand  discovery  of  the  law  of 
gravity.  You  will  see,  then,  how  natural  it  was  for  people  to 
pay  deference  to  his  opinion,  to  be  prejudiced  in  favor  of  his 
conclusions.  It  was  perfectly  natural  and,  within  certain 
limits,  perfectly  right.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  not  only  pro- 
pounded this  law  of  gravity,  but  he  propounded  a  theory  of 
light  which  the  world  has  since  discovered  to  be  wrong. 
But  it  was  universally  accepted  because  it  was  his.  It  be- 
came the  accepted  scientific  theory  of  the  time.  By  and 
by  a  man,  unknown  up  to  that  time,  by  the  name  of  Young, 
studied  Newton's  theory,  and  became  convinced  that  it  was 
wrong ;  and  he  propounded  another  theory,  the  one  which 
to-day  is  universally  accepted  through  the  civilized  world. 
But  it  was  years  before  it  could  gain  anything  like  ade- 
quate or  fair  consideration,  because  the  preconception  in 
favor  of  Newton's  theory  stood  in  the  way  of  any  adequate 
consideration  of  the  one  which  was  subsequently  universally 
adopted. 

So  you  will  find  scientific  men, —  I  know  any  quantity  of 
them, —  grand  in  their  fields,  doing  fine  work,  who  are 
not  willing  to  consider  anything  which  would  compel  a 
reconstruction  of  their  theories  and  ideas.  This  is  true  not 
only  in  the  scientific  field,  but  it  is  true  everywhere  :  it  is 
true  in  politics.  How  many  men  can  you  get  fairly  to  con- 
sider the  political  position  of  his  opponent  ?  He  not  only 
doubts  the  Tightness  and  the  sense  of  it,  but  he  is  ready  to 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  99 

deny  it.  How  many  people  can  you  get  fairly  to  weigh  the 
position  of  one  who  occupies  a  religious  home  different  from 
their  own  ?  And  these  religious  prejudices,  being  bound 
up  with  the  tenderest  and  noblest  sentiments,  feelings,  and 
traditions  of  the  human  heart,  become  the  strongest  of  all, 
and  so  are  in  more  danger  of  standing  in  the  way  of  human 
progress  than  anything  else  in  all  the  world. 

People  identify  their  theories  of  religion  with  religion 
itself,  with  the  honor  of  God,  with  the  worship  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  feel  that  somehow  it  is  impious  for  them  to 
consider  the  question  whether  their  intellectual  theories  are 
correct  or  not ;  and  so  the  world  stands  by  the  ideas  of 
the  past,  and  opposes  anything  like  finer  and  nobler  ideas 
that  offer  themselves  for  consideration.  And  not  only  in 
the  religious  field ;  but  these  religious  prejudices  stand  in 
the  way  of  accepting  truths  outside  the  sphere  of  religion. 
For  example,  when  Darwin  published  his  book,  "The 
Origin  of  Species,"  the  greatest  opposition  it  met  with  was 
from  the  religious  world.  Why  ?  Had  they  considered 
Darwin's  arguments  to  find  out  whether  they  were  true? 
Nothing  of  the  kind.  But  they  flew  to  the  sudden  conclu- 
sion that  somehow  or  other  the  religion  of  the  world  was  in 
danger,  if  Darwinism  should  prove  to  be  true.  And  it  is 
very  curious  to  note  —  I  wonder  how  long  the  world  will 
keep  on  repeating  that  serio-comic  blunder  —  from  the  very 
beginning  it  has  been  the  same ;  almost  every  single  step 
that  the  world  proposes  to  take  in  advance  is  opposed  by 
the  constituted  religious  authorities  of  the  time  because  they 
assume  at  the  outset  that  the  theories  which  they  have  been 
holding  are  divinely  authorized  and  infallible,  and  that  it  is 
not  only  untrue, —  this  other  statement, —  but  that  it  is  im- 
pious as  well. 


IOO  Our  Unitarian   Gospel 

The  doubt,  then,  that  springs  from  preconceived  ideas  is 
not  only  unjustifiable,  but  may  be  dangerous  and  wrong. 

Then  there  is  another  kind  of  doubt  against  which  you 
should  beware.  There  are  certain  doubts  that,  if  accepted 
and  acted  on,  stand  in  the  way  of  the  creation  of  the  most  mag- 
nificent facts  in  the  world.  Take  as  an  illustration  of  what  I 
mean  :  when  Napoleon,  a  young  man  in  Paris,  was  asked  to 
take  command  of  the  guard  of  the  city,  suppose  he  had 
doubted,  questioned,  distrusted,  his  own  ability ;  suppose  he 
had  been  timid  and  afraid, —  the  history  of  the  world  would 
have  been  changed  by  that  one  doubt.  Take  another  illus- 
tration. At  the  opening  of  our  war  or  in  the  months  jus-t  pre- 
ceding the  beginning  of  active  hostilities  the  man  then 
occupying  the  presidential  chair  had  no  faith, —  no  faith  in 
himself,  no  faith  in  the  perpetuity  of  our  institutions,  no 
faith  in  the  people;  and  so  he  sat  doubting,  while  every- 
thing crumbled  in  pieces  around  him.  And  then  appeared 
a  man  in  whom  the  people  had  little  faith  at  first,  and  who 
had  no  great  faith  perhaps  in  his  own  ability ;  but  he  had 
infinite  faith  in  God,  faith  in  right,  faith  in  the  people,  faith 
in  the  possibilities  of  freedom  trusted  in  the  hands  of  the 
people.  And  this  faith  created  a  new  nation. 

If  there  had  been  doubt  in  the  heart  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
again  the  history  of  the  world  would  have  been  changed. 
He  believed  that 

"  Right  is  right,  since  God  is  God, 

And  right  the  day  must  win : 
To  doubt  would  be  disloyalty, 
To  falter  would  be  sin." 

You  see,  then,  here  is  another  field  where  you  had  better 
be  wary  of  doubt.  Do  not  doubt  yourself,  do  not  doubt  the 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  101 

possibilities  of  noble  action,  noble  character,  of  achievement. 
We  say  of  a  young  man  entering  life,  brimful  of  enthusiasm, 
that  all  this  will  be  toned  down  by  and  by ;  and  we  speak 
of  it  as  though  the  enthusiasm  itself  somehow  was  a  fault 
or  a  folly.  And  yet  it  is  just  this  enthusiasm  of  the  young 
men  that  moves  and  lifts  the  world.  It  is  this  faith  in  them- 
selves and  in  the  possibility  of  great  things, —  it  is  this  faith 
that  lies  at  the  heart  of  every  invention,  of  every  great  dis- 
covery, of  every  magnificent  achievement.  Read  the  history 
of  invention.  The  world  is  full  of  stories  of  men  who  got  a 
new  idea.  They  were  laughed  at,  they  were  told  it  was  im- 
practicable ;  and,  if  they  had  been  laughed  out  of  it,  it  would 
have  been  impracticable.  It  was  their  faith  in  the  possibility 
of  some  great  new  thing,  their  faith  in  the  resources  of  the 
universe,  their  faith  in  themselves  as  able  to  discover  some 
new  truth  and  make  it  applicable  to  the  needs  of  the  world, 
—  it  was  this  faith  which  has  been  at  the  root  of  the  grandest 
things  that  have  ever  been  done. 

It  is  this  which  was  in  the  heart  of  Columbus  as  he  sailed 
out  towards  the  West.  It  is  this  which  was  in  the  heart  of 
Magellan  as  he  studied  the  shadow  of  the  earth  across  the 
face  of  the  moon,  and  believed  in  the  story  that  shadow  told 
him  against  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  world. 

But  now  let  us  turn  sharply,  and  find  out  where  doubt 
does  come  in,  and  where  it  is  as  honorable,  as  noble,  as 
necessary  as  faith. 

People  misuse  this  word  "faith."  Doubt  applies  to  all 
questions  of  fact  that  may  be  investigated,  to  all  questions  of 
history,  to  all  questions  open  to  the  exercise  of  the  critical 
faculty.  For  example,  if  I  am  told  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  and  I  say  I  accept  that  statement  on  faith,  I  am 
abusing  the  dictionary.  I  have  no  business  to  accept  it  on 


IO2  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

faith.  Faith  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it.  It  is  a 
pure  matter  of  scholarship.  It  is  a  matter  of  study,  of  inves- 
tigation, a  matter  of  clear  and  hard  intelligence  and  nothing 
more. 

Suppose  I  am  told  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  infallible, 
and  I  am  asked  to  accept  it  as  an  article  of  faith.  Here, 
again,  the  introduction  of  the  word  "  faith  "  into  a  domain  like 
that  is  an  impertinence.  Faith  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  it.  That  is  a  question  of  fact.  We  can  read  his- 
tory for  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years.  We  can  find  out 
what  the  Catholic  Church  has  said  and  what  the  Catholic 
Church  has  done,  as  to  whether  it  has  proved  itself  abso- 
lutely infallible  or  not.  It  is  a  matter  of  study  and  deci- 
sion intellectually ;  and  it  is  my  duty  to  doubt  that  which 
does  not  bring  authentic  credentials  in  a  field  like  this. 

Take  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel  of 
John.  Was  it  written  by  the  apostle  John,  who  lay  in  the 
bosom  of  Jesus,  and  was  called  the  beloved  disciple  ?  Have 
I  any  business  to  say  I  have  faith  that  it  was  written  by 
him,  and  let  it  rest  there  ?  Faith  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
We  can  trace  the  history  of  that  book,  find  out  when  first 
it  was  referred  to,  follow  it  back  as  far  as  possible,  find  out 
whether  it  was  in  existence  before  the  apostle  John  had 
died  or  not.  It  is  a  pure  matter  of  criticism,  a  matter  of 
study ;  and  I  have  no  business  to  accept  it  as  a  matter  of 
faith,  because,  if  I  do,  I  am  in  danger  not  only  of  deceiving 
myself,  but  of  misleading  the  world.  And  truth, — we  can- 
not say  it  too  often  or  too  emphatically, —  truth  is  the  only 
thing  that  is  holy  in  investigations  of  this  kind.  Men's  be- 
liefs and  mistakes,  old,  venerable,  reverenced  though  they 
may  have  been  by  thousands  and  for  hundreds  of  years,  are 
no  less  unworthy  longer  to  delude  the  minds  of  men.  Truth 
is  divine,  truth  is  the  one  object  of  our  search. 


Doubt  and  Fait/t  —  Both  Holy  103 

Now  let  us  come  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  nature  of 
faith.  I  said  a  little  while  ago  that  the  word  is  very  fre- 
quently misused.  Nine  times  out  of  ten,  when  I  hear  people 
using  the  word  "faith  "  and  I  see  the  connection  in  which  they 
use  it,  I  discover  they  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
That  which  has  favor  generally  under  the  name  of  faith  is 
simple  credulity.  It  is  closing  the  eyes  and  accepting  some- 
thing on  somebody's  authority  without  any  investigation. 
That,  remember,  is  not  faith. 

Let  us  see  now  if  I  can  give  you  a  clear  idea  of  what  faith 
really  is  ;  and  now  I  have  the  Bible  —  and  I  am  glad  to  say  it 
—  behind  me.  This  magnificent  chapter,*  a  portion  of  which 
I  read  as  our  lesson  this  morning,  gives  precisely  the  same 
idea  of  faith  as  that  which  I  am  going  to  outline.  What  is 
faith  ?  Faith  is  a  purely  rational  faculty.  It  is  not  irrational, 
but  it  is  perfectly  understandable.  Suppose  there  is  a  man 
suddenly  accused  of  a  crime,  and  I  never  saw  him  before,  I 
do  not  even  know  his  name ;  but  I  go  into  court  when  he  is 
brought  up  for  trial,  and  I  say  that  I  have  faith  in  that  man, 
and  I  do  not  believe  that  he  committed  the  crime.  Do  you 
not  see  that  I  am  talking  nonsense  ?  I  have  no  business  to 
have  faith  in  him,  there  is  no  ground  for  faith,  it  is  an  entire 
misuse  of  the  word.  But  now  take  another  case.  Here  is  a 
man  that  I  have  known  for  twenty  years.  I  have  seen  him 
in  business.  I  have  seen  him  in  his  home,  among  his  neigh- 
bors and  friends,  and  in  the  street.  I  have  met  him  in  all 
sorts  of  relations.  I  have  talked  with  him,  I  have  tested  him. 
I  have  been  intimate  with  him.  He  is  suddenly  accused  of 
crime,  and  is  brought  into  court.  I  appear,  and  say  I  have 
faith  in  that  man,  I  do  not  believe  that  he  committed  the 
crime.  I  do  not  know  that  he  did  not  commit  it ;  but  I  have 

«  Heb.  ri. 


IO4  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

grounds  here  for  faith.  In  the  light  of  his  past  life,  of  his 
experience,  of  his  temptations,  of  his  opportunities  to  go 
wrong,  and  of  his  having  gone  right, —  in  the  light  of  all  this 
past  experience  of  years,  I  have  faith  in  this  man ;  and  I  say 
it,  and  I  am  talking  reason  and  sense.  In  the  other  case 
I  am  talking  folly. 

Faith,  you  see,  is  a  rational  faculty.  Let  me  give  you 
another  illustration.  Suppose  I  am  driving  along  through 
the  country  some  morning  when  there  is  a  very  thick  fog 
hanging  over  the  landscape.  The  fog  is  so  thick  that 
I  can  see  no  more  than  ten  or  fifteen  feet  ahead  of  me  ;  but 
I  discover  that  I  am  near  the  bank  of  a  river,  and  I  come 
to  the  entrance  to  a  bridge.  I  can  see  enough  to  know 
that  here  is  an  abutment  of  a  bridge  and  an  arch  springing 
out  into  the  fog.  I  drive  on  to  that  bridge  with  simple  con- 
fidence. I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  other  end  to  the 
bridge.  I  have  never  seen  it  before.  I  have  seen  other 
bridges,  however  ;  and  I  know  that,  generally,  bridges  not 
only  begin  somewhere,  but  end  somewhere.  So,  though  I  do 
not  know  for  certain  that  the  bridge  ends  on  the  other  side 
of  the  river, —  for  aught  I  know  there  may  be  a  break  in  it, 
the  bridge  may  not  be  completed,  something  may  have  hap- 
pened to  it, —  I  confidently  drive  on  ;  and  in  ninety-nine  times 
out  of  a  hundred  my  faith  is  justified  by  the  result.  This  is 
a  pure  act  of  faith,  but  faith,  do  you  not  see,  based  in  reality, 
springing  out  of  experience,  and  so  a  purely  rational  act  of 
the  mind. 

Let  me  give  you  one  illustration  of  the  scientific  use  of 
faith,  very  striking,  beautiful,  as  it  seems  to  me.  The  only 
time  Mr.  Huxley  was  in  this  country,  I  happened  to  be  in 
New  York,  and  heard  him  give  the  opening  one  of  a  brief 
course  of  three  lectures  in  Chickering  Hall.  He  was  very 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  105 

much  interested  then  in  the  ancestry  of  the  horse.  Most  of 
you  are  probably  aware  of  the  fact  that  they  have  traced 
its  ancestry  to  a  little  creature  having  five  toes,  like  ordinary 
animals.  At  the  time  that  Mr.  Huxley  was  here,  one  link  in 
this  chain  was  missing;  that  is,  one  of  the  forms  in  the 
line  of  the  horse's  ancestors  had  not  been  discovered. 

But  here,  for  example,  was  the  first  one  and  the  second 
one,  we  say,  and  the  third  one  was  missing,  and  here  was 
the  fourth  one,  and  here  was  the  horse  itself.  Now,  in  the 
light  of  the  presumable  uniformity  of  nature,  Mr.  Huxley 
went  on  to  describe  this  missing  animal.  He  said,  it  the 
remains  of  this  creature  are  ever  found,  they  will  be  so  and 
so ;  and  he  went  into  an  accurate  detailed  explanation  as  to 
what  sort  of  creature  it  would  be.  He  had  not  been  at 
his  home  in  England  a  year  before  Professor  Marsh,  of  Yale 
College,  discovered  this  missing  link  in  Colorado,  and  it 
answered  precisely  to  the  description  which  Professor  Hux- 
ley had  beforehand  given  of  it. 

Now  here  is  a  case  of  scientific  prophecy,  scientific  faith, — 
a  faith  based  on  previous  scientific  observations,  based  on 
the  experienced  uniformity  of  nature.  Mr.  Huxley  did  not 
know,  he  could  not  have  known;  but  he  believed.  He 
believed  in  the  universe,  he  believed  in  the  sanity  of  the 
universe,  he  believed  in  the  uniformity,  the  order,  the 
beauty  of  the  universe ;  and  the  result  justified  his  faith. 

Faith,  then,  is  a  purely  rational  faculty.  It  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  past,  but  is  always  the  evidence  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  substance  of  something  not  yet  seen.  It  is 
always  looking  along  the  lines  of  possible  experience  for 
something  as  possibly  or  probably  to  be. 

Now  at  the  end  I  wish  to  suggest  a  few  things  that  are  in 
the  rightful  province  and  field  of  faith, —  fields  where  we  can 


106  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

fearlessly  exercise  this  grand  faculty,  where  indeed  we  must 
exercise  it  if  we  are  to  achieve  the  highest  and  finest  results 
in  the  world. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  quoting  the  words  of  the  old 
writer,  let  me  say,  "  Have  faith  in  God."  I  do  not  mean 
by  this,  accept  certain  intellectual  statements  or  proposi- 
tions about  him,  though  they  may  be  mine,  and  though  I 
may  thoroughly  accept  and  believe  them. 

You  may  doubt  the  representation  of  God  that  is  made 
in  any  one  of  the  theologies  of  the  world,  as  to  whether  the 
statements  made  about  him  are  accurate.  It  is  not  this 
intellectual  belief  that  I  am  talking  about  at  this  minute. 
Have  faith  in  God  !  You  may  not  even  use  the  name.  I  am 
no  such  stickler  for  phrases  as  to  condemn  a  man  who  can- 
not say  "God."  I  have  known  a  good  many  men,  who  have 
hesitated  to  pronounce  the  name,  who  were  infinitely  more 
divine  in  their  life  and  character  than  those  who  are  glibly 
uttering  it  every  hour  of  their  lives.  It  is  not  this  I  mean. 
It  is  something  deeper,  higher,  grander  than  that.  As  you 
look  along  the  lines  of  history  from  the  far-off  time  when 
we  begin  to  trace  it  until  to-day,  and  see  the  magnificent 
march  of  advance, —  an  orderly  universe  lightening  and  glo- 
rifying as  it  advances,  becoming  ever  finer  and  higher  and 
better;  as  you  observe  the  order  and  truth  and  beauty 
and  good  dominant,  and  ever  coming  to  be  more  and  more 
dominant  as  the  years  advance, —  believe  in  this  and  trust 
this,  trust  to  all  possibilities  of  something  finer  and  grander 
by  way  of  outcome  in  the  future.  Have  faith  in  God  ! 

And,  then,  have  faith  in  truth.  I  meet  only  a  few  people 
that  seem  to  me  to  have  utter  faith  in  truth,  who  really 
believe  that  it  is  safe  to  tell  the  truth,  always  tell  it.  I  talk 
with  a  great  many  people  —  I  wish  to  mention  this  as  an 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  107 

illustration  of  what  I  mean  —  who  speak  in  the  greatest  com- 
mendation of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  They  say,  We 
do  not  know  what  we  should  do  in  this  country  if  we  had  not 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  keep  a  certain  section  of  the 
people  down,  to  keep  them  in  order.  I  wonder  if  people 
ever  realize  just  what  this  means.  It  means  a  lack  of  faith, 
in  God  and  faith  in  truth  and  faith  in  humanity,  all  three. 
If  it  is  not  safe  to  tell  the  truth,  then  I  am  not  responsible 
for  it.  I  propose  to  say  it,  although  people  tell  me  that 
there  is  danger  of  the  explosion  of  the  universe  on  account 
of  it.  If  there  is,  I  am  not  responsible  for  making  it  true. 
Oh,  I  get  so  tired  of  this  kind  of  timidity,  this  playing  hide- 
and-seek  with  people !  I  have  had  a  minister  tell  me  that 
he  wished  he  was  free  to  tell  the  truth  in  his  pulpit,  as  I  am; 
and  then  I  have  had  people  in  his  congregation  tell  me 
afterwards  that  they  wished  their  minister  would  preach  the 
truth  plainly,  as  I  did.  Simply  playing  hide-and-seek  with 
each  other ! 

You  remember  the  story  of  the  man  in  Italy,  who  asked 
the  priest  if  he  really  believed  the  religion  of  the  country ; 
and  the  priest  said,  "  Oh,  no !  we  have  to  go  slowly  on 
account  of  the  people ;  they  believe  it."  And  when  the 
people  were  asked  if  they  believed  it,  they  said,  "  Oh,  no, 
we  are  not  such  fools ;  but  the  priests  believe  it."  And  so 
people  play  hide-and-seek  with  each  other,  not  daring  to 
tell  the  magnificent,  clear  truth  of  things. 

Have  faith  in  the  truth.  It  is  feared  that  it  is  not  quite 
safe  to  tell  people  the  truth,  because  they  are  not  quite 
ready  for  it ;  and  I  have  had  no  end  of  conversations  dur- 
ing the  religious  discussion  of  the  last  two  or  three  weeks 
right  in  this  line.  It  seems  to  me  very  much  like  saying 
that,  because  a  man  has  been  shut  up  in  a  dark  prison  for  a 


io8  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

long  time,  you  had  better  keep  him  there,  because  it  would 
be  such  a  shock  to  him  suddenly  to  face  the  light.  Un- 
doubtedly, it  would  be  a  shock.  Undoubtedly,  it  would 
trouble  and  stagger  people  for  a  little  while  to  be  told  the 
simple  truth ;  but  how  is  the  world  ever  to  get  ahead,  if 
you  keep  on,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  lying  to  it  for  ages? 
How  is  it  ever  going  to  find  the  truth  ?  Shall  I  lie  for  the 
glory  of  God,  the  supposed  honor  of  God  ?  I  will  take  no 
such  responsibility. 

Let  us  have  faith  in  the  truth,  then.  Tell  it  fearlessly, 
simply,  utterly ;  and,  if  God  is  not  able  to  take  care  of  his 
own  world,  why,  the  sooner  it  ends  and  we  get  into  a  stage 
of  existence  where  it  is  safe  to  tell  the  truth,  the  better. 

Have  faith  in  men.  Have  faith  in  the  people.  This  it  is 
that  we  trust  to  in  all  our  hopes  of  progress  for  the  future. 
This  it  is  which  distinguished  Lincoln  among  our  statesmen. 
You  remember  that  grand  saying  of  his,  true  and  humorous, 
so  that  it  sticks  in  our  memory,  and  we  can  never  forget  it, 
— "  You  can  fool  all  the  people  a  part  of  the  time ;  you  can 
fool  a  part  of  the  people  all  the  time ;  but  you  can't  fool  all 
the  people  all  of  the  time."  Here  is  the  basis  on  which  we 
rest  our  republic.  Our  republic  is  fallen  unless  the  people 
are  really  to  be  trusted. 

Have  faith,  then,  in  the  people, —  faith  in  their  healthy  in- 
stincts, faith  in  their  general  sanity,  faith  in  their  desire 
for  the  right  and  the  true  ;  and  this  is  a  genuine  exercise 
of  faith,  for  the  past  history  of  the  world  justifies  it. 

And,  then,  have  faith  in  yourself  as  a  child  of  God.  I 
do  not  mean  conceit  now.  I  do  not  mean  an  overestimate 
of  your  ability,  but  belief  that  you  can  do  great,  grand, 
noble  things, —  belief  that  you  can  become  something  great, 
noble,  grand ;  belief  in  the  possibility  in  this  life  or  in  some 


Doubt  and  Faith  —  Both  Holy  109 

other  life  of  unfolding  all  that  is  highest,  truest,  sweetest,  in 
manhood  and  womanhood.  It  is  this  faith  that  is  able  to 
create  the  fact  and  make  that  which  it  trusts  in. 

Let  us  then  believe  in  God,  believe  in  truth,  believe  in  hu- 
manity, believe  in  ourselves  ;  and  then  we  may  work  towards 
the  coming  of  that  far,  grand  time  when  the  dreams  of  the 
world  shall  be  realized  and  its  faith  shall  become  reality. 


IS    LIFE   A    PROBATION    ENDED    BY 
DEATH? 


MY  subject  this  morning  is  an  attempted  answer  to  the 
question,  "Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death ?"  It  will 
broaden  itself  naturally,  if  we  cannot  accept  that  theory  of 
it,  into  the  further  question,  What  is  the  main  end  and 
purpose  of  our  life  ?  I  take  my  text  from  the  fifth  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  the  fifteenth  and  the  six- 
teenth verses.  I  will  read  them  as  they  appear  in  the  Old 
Version :  "  See,  then,  that  ye  walk  circumspectly,  not  as 
fools,  but  as  wise,  redeeming  the  time." 

The  idea  of  the  writer  is  that,  as  we  pass  through  the 
world,  we  should  do  it  with  our  eyes  kept  intelligently  open, 
looking  about  us  on  every  hand,  trying  to  comprehend  the 
situation,  to  see  what  things  are,  and  what  we  ought  to  do  to 
play  our  part  in  the  midst  of  them.  Not  heedlessly,  not  un- 
wisely, he  says, —  perhaps  hardly  the  harsh  word  "fools," 
—  but  as  wise,  as  persons  intelligently  ready  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  situation  and  make  the  most  of  the  condition 
in  which  one  finds  himself;  redeeming  the  time,  or,  as 
the  Revised  Version  has  it,  "  buying  up  the  opportunity  " ; 
being  ready,  that  is,  to  pay  whatever  price  is  necessary  in 
order  to  make  the  most  of  the  situation. 

This,  then,  is  the  spirit  according  to  our  text  in  which  we 
should  look  over  the  problem  of  life ;  and  this  is  the  method 
by  which  we  should  attempt  to  guide  its  practical  affairs. 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?          ill 

That  which  people  regard  as  the  matter  of  most  impor- 
tance, any  particular  theory  or  plan  of  life  which  they  may 
hold  to  be  for  them  the  most  desirable,  —  this,  of  course,  is 
that  to  which  they  will  direct  their  chief  attention,  on  which 
they  will  lavish  their  thought,  on  which  they  will  pour  out 
their  care,  to  which  they  will  consecrate  their  energies.  If 
now  the  theory  or  plan  of  life  be  false,  if  it  be  inadequate, 
if  one  is  looking  in  the  wrong  direction  for  the  success  that 
he  desires,  or  if  he  expects  to  achieve  the  great  end  and 
object  of  living  by  means  which  are  not  real,  which  do  not 
match  the  actual  facts  of  the  world  and  of  human  life,  then 
of  course  his  effort  is  so  far  thrown  away.  He  wastes  ener- 
gies, power,  time,  enthusiasm  on  wrong  ends  which  might 
be  used  to  the  attainment  of  things  which  are  real  and  fine 
and  high. 

Is  it  not  then  of  the  utmost  importance  that  our  con- 
ception of  life,  what  it  is  for,  what  we  ought  to  attempt  to 
reach,  and  how  we  should  make  this  attempt,  should  be  an 
accurate  one  ?  Any  young  man  starting  out  in  life,  if  he  sets 
up  for  himself  a  goal  which  is  unworthy,  which  does  not 
match  his  faculties  and  powers,  and  if  he  proposes  to  reach 
it  by  means  which  are  not  adequate  to  the  attainment  of  his 
desires,  —  do  you  not  see  how  he  wrecks  and  wastes  his 
life  ?  His  opportunity  is  gone  ;  and  by  and  by  he  wakes  up 
to  find  that  the  years  have  been  dissipated,  and  he  has  not 
attained  any  worthy  or  noble  end. 

If  this  be  true  of  a  young  man  as  he  looks  forward  to  a 
scheme  or  plan  of  life  here  during  these  few  short  years,  how 
much  more  is  a  similar  thing  true,  when  we  are  contemplat- 
ing not  merely  the  question  of  a  business,  or  professional  or 
social  failure  and  success,  but  are  looking  at  the  grander  and 
more  inclusive  theme  of  the  beginning  and  aim  and  outcome 


112  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

of  life  itself !  We  have  inherited  from  the  past  the  idea 
that  this  life  here,  under  the  blue  sky  for  a  few  years,  as  we 
live  it,  is  a  probation,  that  we  are  put  here  on  trial,  and  that 
death  ends  it,  and  that,  when  we  have  passed  that  line,  gone 
over  from  that  which  is  visible  here  into  the  invisible,  we  are 
either  "  lost "  or  "  saved,"  and  things  are  definitely  fixed  for- 
ever. 

I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  the  most  of  us  who  are 
here  have  given  up  this  idea,  though  there  may  remain  frag- 
ments and  suggestions  of  it  in  our  minds  still  haunting  the 
chambers  of  the  brain,  not  yet  outgrown,  not  yet  cleared 
away.  But  with  most  people  in  the  modern  world,  if  they 
are  sincere,  if  they  are  consistent,  the  one  great  question 
with  them  is  whether  they  are  to  be  saved  or  lost  in 
another  life.  And,  if  this  be  the  true  theory  of  things,  then 
not  only  ought  men  to  bend  all  their  thought,  their  energies, 
devote  their  enthusiasms,  consecrate  their  time  and  money  to 
it  as  much  as  they  do,  but  a  thousand  times  more. 

We  look,  perhaps,  with  a  sort  of  amused  curiosity,  some 
of  us,  from  what  we  regard  as  our  superior  point  of  view,  at 
a  man  like  Mr.  Moody  ;  and  yet  Mr.  Moody  is  one  man  out 
of  a  million  for  his  consistency  and  consecration  to  the 
thought  which  underlies  all  the  Protestant  churches  of  the 
modern  world,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  here  and  there. 
Mr.  Moody  believes  that  this  life  is  a  probation  ended  by 
death.  There  are  thousands  on  thousand  on  thousands  of 
men  who  say  they  believe  it,  who  still  cast  in  all  their  influ- 
ence with  churches  that  are  based  on  it,  and  who  yet  devote 
their  energies  mainly  to  making  money,  to  attaining  social  suc- 
cess, to  pleasures  of  one  kind  or  another,  to  political  ambi- 
tions, who  live  as  though  this  great  fate  were  not  overhanging 
the  world,  who  meet  their  neighbors  for  pleasure  or  busi- 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Deatli?          113 

ness,  believing,  if  they  are  sincere,  that  this  neighbor  is 
heedlessly  walking  on  to  the  brink  of  a  gulf,  and  yet  never 
speaking  to  him  about  it,  never  saying  a  word  to  imply  that 
they  really  believe  it ;  and  yet  this  fear  hangs  over  them, 
haunts  their  consciousness  waking  or  sleeping ;  and,  if  you 
ask  them  if  they  believe  it,  they  will  say  they  suppose  they  do. 
In  hours  of  danger,  when  disease  threatens  them  or  they  are 
looking  death  in  the  face,  they  are  affrighted,  and  try  to 
flee  to  the  traditional  refuge  as  a  place  of  safety. 

The  whole  great  Catholic  Church  teaches  that  nobody  has 
the  slightest  chance  of  being  saved  except  by  becoming  a 
member  of  her  great  body  of  believers  and  partaking  of  her 
sacramental  means  of  grace. 

This,  I  say  then,  is  the  great  underlying  belief  of  Chris- 
tendom ;  and,  if  it  is  true,  the  world  ought  to  consecrate  itself, 
head  and  brain  and  soul,  time,  money,  power,  prayer,  enthu- 
siasm, everything,  to  delivering  men  from  the  imminent 
danger.  If  it  is  not  true,  then  it  ought  to  be  brushed  com- 
pletely one  side,  put  out  of  consciousness,  of  thought,  of 
fear.  The  world  ought  to  be  dispossessed  of  its  haunting 
presence.  Why  ?  So  that  we  may  fix  our  attention  on  the 
true  end  and  aim  of  life,  and  find  out  what  it  means  to  live, 
how  we  ought  to  live,  and  why  and  what  for,  what  ought  to 
be  the  goal  of  our  human  endeavor. 

So  long,  then,  as  this  belief  does  lie  at  the  foundation 
of  all  the  great  churches  of  Christendom,  so  long  as  it  is 
employed  in  all  the  criticisms  of  us  who  do  not  any  longer 
accept  it,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  worth  our  while  to  recon- 
sider the  question  for  a  little  while,  so  that  we  may  clear  our 
minds  and  thoughts,  and  may  fix  our  attention  definitely  and 
earnestly  on  that  which  ought  to  be  the  goal  of  all  our 
endeavor,  our  enthusiasm  and  our  hope. 


114  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Let  us,  then,  look  for  just  a  few  moments  at  this  theory, 
and  see  what  it  means  and  implies. 

It  is  said  that  our  first  father  was  put  on  probation,  was 
called  upon  to  decide,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  all  his 
descendants,  as  to  what  the  future  history  of  the  inhabitants 
of  this  planet  should  be.  Two  famous  books  were  published 
only  a  few  years  ago  by  Dr.  Edward  Beecher,  the  eldest  son 
in  that  famous  family.  These  were  "  The  Conflict  of  Ages  " 
and  "The  Concord  of  Ages."  Dr.  Beecher  argued  that 
anything  like  a  fair  probation  on  the  part  of  Adam  was  an 
impossibility.  This  in  the  face  of  the  prevailing  beliefs  of 
the  time  when  the  books  were  written.  He  said  that,  if  a 
man  were  to  choose  on  such  a  momentous  question  as  this, 
—  choose  adequately,  choose  fairly,  —  he  must  be  so  cir- 
cumstanced and  endowed  that  he  could  comprehend  the  en- 
tire result  of  his  choice.  He  must  be  able  to  look  down  the 
ages  imaginatively,  and  see  on  one  hand  all  the  line  of  sin 
and  misery,  of  death,  finite  and  eternal,  which  should  issue 
from  his  choosing  in  one  direction.  He  must  be  able  to 
comprehend  all  the  good,  the  music,  the  joy,  the  beauty,  the 
glory,  the  infinite  perfectibility,  in  this  world  and  the  next, 
which  should  follow  his  choice  in  the  other  direction.  And 
he  said  that  Adam  had  no  such  opportunity  as  that,  and  was 
not  endowed  with  the  ability  or  the  experience  to  make  any 
such  momentous  choice  ;  in  other  words,  that  the  funda- 
mental basis  of  the  whole  theological  scheme  of  the  world 
was  unjust  and  unfair. 

This  was  Dr.  Beecher's  contention.  How  did  he  get  over 
the  difficulty  ?  He  believed  in  the  pre-existence  of  human 
souls,  and  that  in  some  other  life  before  Adam  there  must 
have  been  an  intelligent  and  fair  choice,  and  that  we  here 
and  now  are  only  fighting  out  one  stage  of  the  results  of 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death  ?          115 

that  far-off  decision.  But,  if  you  will  stop  to  think  of  it  a 
moment,  you  will  see  that  this  puts  the  difficulty  only  a  little 
further  back:  it  does  not  solve  it.  How  does  this  first 
person,  if  it  is  so,  countless  millions  of  ages  ago,  happen  to 
be  endowed  with  intelligence  and  experience  and  ability 
enough  to  make  such  a  momentous  choice  ? 

And  now  just  consider  a  moment.  Is  it  conceivable  that 
a  sane  person  should  intelligently  choose  evil,  unless  he  had 
some  inherited  bias  or  tendency  in  that  direction  ?  For 
what  does  the  choice  of  evil  mean  ?  It  means  sorrow,  it 
means  pain,  it  means  death,  it  means  everything  horrible, 
everything  undesirable,  and  means  that  a  person  deliberately 
and  intelligently  pits  himself  against  an  infinite  and  almighty 
power  in  what  he  knows  must  be  an  eternally  losing  battle. 
Can  you  conceive  of  a  sane  person  making  such  a  choice  as 
that? 

If  one  of  these  first  ancestors  in  the  Garden  of  Eden,  or 
no  matter  how  far  back,  had  a  right  to  choose  for  himself, 
I  deny  his  right  to  choose  for  me.  What  right  had  he  to 
choose  for  you  ?  What  right  had  he  to  determine  that  you 
should  be  born  with  a  perverted  and  corrupt  nature,  so  that 
you  would  be  certain  to  choose  evil  instead  of  good, —  help- 
less in  the  hands  of  a  fate  like  this  ? 

Now  you  may  look  at  this  theory  any  way  you  please, 
place  this  probationary  choice  at  the  beginning  of  human 
history  on  this  planet,  or  place  it  just  as  far  back  as  you 
will,  it  is  inconceivable,  it  is  unfair,  it  is  unjust,  it  is 
insane,  it  is  everything  that  is  foolish  and  wrong.  And  yet, 
note  clearly  one  thing.  So  long  as  the  world  believes  this, 
so  long  as  the  one  end  and  aim  of  human  life,  as  held  up  to 
people,  is  to  be  saved,  think  of  the  waste,  think  of  the  time, 
the  anxiety,  the  enthusiasms,  the  prayers,  the  consecrations ; 


Ii6  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

think  of  the  wealth,  think  of  the  intellectual  faculties,  think 
of  the  moral  devotion, —  this  whole  power  of  the  world 
expended  on  a  false  issue,  turned  into  wrong  channels  ! 

Is  this  a  dead  question  ?  Is  there  no  reason  for  us  to 
consider  it  here  in  this  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century? 
Why,  nine-tenths  of  Christendom  to-day  is  spending  its  time 
in  trying  to  propitiate  a  God  who  is  not  angry  and  trying  to 
"  save  "  souls  that  are  not  "  lost."  Expending  its  energies 
along  mistaken  channels  towards  issues  that  are  entirely 
imaginary !  Think,  for  example,  if  during  the  last  two 
thousand  years  all  the  time  and  the  money,  all  the  intelli- 
gence, all  the  consecration,  could  have  been  spent  on  those 
things  that  would  have  really  helped  men  to  find  out  the 
meaning  of  life,  and  to  illustrate  that  meaning  in  earnest 
living;  suppose  the  money  that  has  been  spent  on  the 
cathedrals,  on  the  monasteries,  spent  in  supporting  hordes 
and  hordes  of  priests,  spent  in  all  the  endeavor  to  save  men 
in  a  future  life, —  if  all  this  had  been  used  in  educating  men 
and  training  them  into  a  comprehension  of  what  kind  of 
beings  they  really  are,  what  kind  of  a  world  this  is  in 
which  they  have  found  themselves,  spent  in  training  them 
into  mastery  of  themselves,  spent  in  teaching  them  how  to 
understand  and  control  the  forces  of  nature  in  order  to 
serve  and  develop  the  higher  life, —  think  what  a  civilization 
might  have  been  developed  here  on  this  poor  old  planet  by 
this  time !  How  much  of  the  disease,  how  much  of  the 
corruption,  how  much  of  the  unkindness,  how  much  of  the 
cruelty,  how  much  of  all  that  still  remains  in  us  of  the  ani- 
mal, might  have  been  outgrown,  sloughed  off,  put  under- 
neath our  feet! 

Is  it  not,  then,  a  vital  question,  so  long  as  so  many  thou- 
sands, so  many  millions  of  people  are  still  consecrating  their 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?          117 

time,  their  money,  their  energy,  in  the  attempt  to  do  that 
which  does  not  need  to  be  done  ? 

Let  us  turn,  now,  and  for  a  little  while  face  another  theory 
of  human  life ;  try  to  find  out,  or  to  suggest,  what  we  are 
here  on  this  planet  for,  what  may  be  accomplished,  how 
much  of  grand  and  true  may  be  wrought  out  as  the  result  of 
our  attempt. 

The  philosopher  Kant  has  somewhere  said  that  there  are 
three  things  needed  to  the  success  of  a  human  life, — "  some- 
thing to  do,  some  one  to  love,  something  to  hope  for."  The 
old  Catechism  says  that  the  chief  end  of  man  is  "  to  glorify 
God  and  enjoy  him  forever."  I  indorse  the  words  of  Kant; 
I  agree  most  heartily  and  thoroughly  with  the  Catechism. 
Philip  James  Bailey,  the  author  of  that  once  famous  poem 
"  Festus,"  has  said, 

"  Life's  but  a  means  unto  an  end  ;  that  end, 
Beginning,  mean,  and  end  to  all  things, —  God." 

This  also  I  indorse.  I  believe  that  life  is  something 
inner,  something  deeper  than  that  which  we  ordinarily  think 
of  as  constituting  the  matters  of  chief  concern  regarding  it. 
Let  me  quote  two  or  three  lines  again  from  Bailey's  "  Fes- 
tus," familiar  to  you  because  so  fine. 

"  We  live  in  deeds,  not  years  ;  in  thoughts,  not  breaths ; 
In  feelings,  not  in  figures  on  a  dial. 
We  should  count  time  by  heart-throbs.     He  most  lives 
Who  thinks  most,  feels  the  noblest,  acts  the  best." 

What  is  human  life,  then  ?  What  is  it  for  ?  The  object  of 
life  is  living.  But  what  does  living  mean  ?  Most  people 
cannot  answer  that  question,  because  they  have  never  more 


n8  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

than  half  lived,  and  consequently  have  never  appreciated  its 
depth  and  significance.  As  I  have  had  occasion  over  and 
over  and  over  again,  to  say  to  business  men, —  and  I  like  to 
say  it  on  every  opportunity, —  it  seems  to  me,  as  I  look  over 
the  face  of  society,  that  most  people  live  only  in  some  little 
fragmentary  way,  some  corner  of  their  being.  Most  men 
spend  their  lives  in  the  attempt  to  accumulate  the  means  to 
live,  and  forget  to  begin  to  live  at  all.  Sometimes,  as  you  are 
riding  through  the  country  on  a  winter  evening,  you  come  to 
a  silent  farm-house,  and  you  see  one  window  lighted  ;  and,  if 
you  should  go  and  knock  at  the  door,  you  would  probably  find 
out  that  the  light  is  shining  from  the  kitchen,  where  the 
family  is  gathered  in  the  evening,  perhaps  as  a  matter  of 
economy  to  save  fire,  perhaps  to  save  trouble.  And,  if  you 
examine  the  lives  of  these  people,  you  would  find  that  they  live 
chiefly  in  the  kitchen.  They  may  have  a  sitting-room  where 
they  spend  a  few  leisure  hours ;  perhaps  they  have  the  begin- 
ning of  a  library;  but  they  do  not  spend  much  time  in  that. 
They  have  little  opportunity  for  the  life  of  the  parlor,  repre- 
senting the  expansive,  social  human  life  which  comes  into  con- 
tact with  other  lives.  And  so  you  will  find  that  this,  which  is  a 
figure,  represents  that  which  is  true  of  most  of  us.  We  have 
only  begun  to  live  ;  and  we  live  in  the  lower  ranges  of  our 
nature,  or  perhaps  we  have  touched  life  on  a  higher  level  in 
some  tentative  sort  of  way.  But  the  most  of  us  are  only 
partly  alive,  have  only  developed  a  little  of  what  is  possible 
in  us,  have  only  come  in  contact  with  some  fragments  of  this 
wonderful  universe  that  is  all  around  us  on  every  hand. 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  life  ?  What  shall  we  try  to 
do  ?  What  are  we  here  for  ?  I  do  not  attempt  to  go  into  the 
profound  explanation  of  mysteries  too  deep  for  me  to 
answer,  as  to  what  must  have  been  in  the  mind  of  God 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death  f          1 19 

when  he  planned  and  created  this  universe  of  which  we  are 
a  part.  My  task  is  a  humbler  one.  Let  us  see  if  I  can 
help  you  comprehend  a  little  part  of  it.  Take  an  illustra- 
tion. 

An  immensely  wealthy  man  suddenly  dies,  leaving  his 
estates  to  a  little  boy  seven  or  eight  years  of  age.  He  has 
wide  stretches  of  land,  hill  and  valley,  river,  woods, —  all 
that  is  beautiful  as  making  up  a  landscape.  The  house 
represents  the  accumulated  resources  of  the  experiences 
and  the  intelligence  of  a  lifetime.  There  are  not  only 
beautiful  drawing-rooms,  telling  of  taste,  but  there  is  a 
library  in  which  is  all  that  the  world  has  been  able  to 
accumulate  of  learning,  of  literature  in  every  department. 
Here  is  another  room  containing  instruments  of  music  and 
the  works  of  the  great  composers.  There  is  an  art  gallery, 
containing  some  of  the  finest  masterpieces  in  the  way  of 
painting  and  sculpture  ;  and  then  there  is  a  room  devoted  to 
scientific  experiments, —  chemistry,  the  microscope,  the  tele- 
scope. Here  are  means  and  opportunity  for  finding  out 
what  the  world  has  so  far  developed. 

Now  has  this  young  boy  come  into  possession  of  these 
things?  He  has  inherited  them,  he  is  his  father's  heir. 
We  say  they  belong  to  him ;  but  do  they  belong  to  him  ? 
In  what  sense  and  to  what  extent  do  they  belong  to  him  ? 
They  belong  to  him  just  in  so  far  and  just  as  fast  as  he  de- 
velops himself  into  capacity  of  comprehension  and  enjoy- 
ment,—  no  faster,  no  farther.  As  he  enters  upon  his  inheri- 
tance then  he  is  put  under  tutors.  Some  man  comes  to 
teach  him  the  languages  which  he  does  not  comprehend ; 
and  by  and  by  that  part  of  the  library  which  is  composed  of 
books  written  in  other  speech  than  his  own  begins  to  belong 
to  him.  It  belongs  to  the  tutor  a  good  deal  more  than  it 


I2O  Our  Unitarian   Gospel 

does  to  the  child,  until  the  child  has  learned  the  lessons  of 
the  tutor.  And  so  another  teacher  comes  to  instruct  him  in 
art ;  and  the  masterpieces  of  art  belong  to  the  person  of 
taste,  of  culture,  with  appreciation,  to  the  teacher  again,  to 
any  one  who  knows  and  who  feels,  instead  of  to  the  boy, 
who  merely  has  possession  of  the  title-deeds. 

Do  you  see  the  suggestion  of  the  picture  ?  Man  wakes  up 
here  on  this  planet  what  sort  of  a  being  ?  Not  at  first  "  a 
little  lower  than  God,"  as  the  old  Psalmist  says  of  him,  but 
only  a  little  higher  than  the  animals, —  ignorant  of  himself, 
ignorant  of  his  surroundings,  weak,  undeveloped  in  every 
faculty  and  power.  He  begins,  we  say,  to  live ;  and  what 
does  that  mean  ?  He  begins  to  explore  this  wonderful  world, 
which  is  his  heritage ;  and  do  you  not  see  that  along  with 
this  exploration  there  goes  of  necessity  a  process  of  self- 
development  ?  I  would  pit  against  that  statement  of  Kant's 
a  phrase  something  like  this.  The  object  of  life  is  three- 
fold :  it  is  to  become  all  possible,  it  is  to  serve  all  possible, 
it  is  to  enjoy  all  possible.  But  I  cannot  outline  completely 
either  one  of  these  suggestions ;  for  they  blend,  they  inter- 
mingle, as  you  will  see  in  a  moment.  They  are  like  different 
notes  in  a  piece  of  music  that  are  so  blended  together  that 
they  constitute  one  tune,  while  separate  they  are  only  frag- 
ments, or  discords. 

The  first  thing,  then,  if  a  man  wishes  really  to  live,  is  that 
he  should  develop  himself,  unfold  the  faculties  and  powers 
which  lie  dormant  in  him.  He  is  a  child  of  God.  He  is 
capable  of  comprehending  within  his  limit  that  which  is 
divine.  He  is  capable  of  being  touched,  played  on,  by  all 
the  phases  and  forces  of  the  universe  surrounding  him. 
He  is  an  instrument  of  ten  thousand  strings  ;  and  marvel- 
lous may  be  the  music  of  his  life. 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?         12 1 

First,  he  should  be  as  complete  an  animal  as  possible. 
Then  he  should  develop  himself  as  a  being  capable  of  think- 
ing, of  knowing.  How  many  men  are  there  that  take  posses- 
sion of  the  intellectual  realm  that  lies  around  them  on  every 
hand?  Just  think.  Let  me  hint  suggestions,  illustrations, 
in  one  or  two  directions.  A  man  goes  out  for  a  walk  in  the 
park,  or,  better  yet,  into  the  country.  The  park  is  too  arti- 
ficial, perhaps,  to  carry  just  the  meaning  that  I  have  in 
mind.  Let  it  be  a  walk  in  the  country,  then.  How  much 
do  the  grasses  and  the  flowers  have  to  say  to  him  ? 

I  have  a  friend  in  Washington,  a  famous  botanist,  a 
botanist  not  only  of  all  things  that  live  and  grow  to-day,  but 
who  has  pushed  his  researches  back  and  down  into  the  pre- 
historic ages  so  as  to  understand  and  explain  the  records, 
the  prints,  the  leaves  and  twigs,  the  forms  of  every  kind  that 
are  on  the  rocks  and  left  to  tell  the  story  of  a  life  that  has 
passed  away  many  thousands  on  thousands  of  years  ago. 
How  much  of  all  this  marvellous  realm,  or  even  a  suggestion 
of  it,  is  revealed  to  the  ordinary  man  as  he  walks  through  the 
field  ? 

Look  in  the  direction  of  geology  a  moment.  Here  is  a 
rivercourse  ;  here  is  the  shape  of  a  hill  top  ;  do  they  say  any- 
thing to  the  ordinary  man  who  walks  with  his  head  down, 
and  occupied  with  some  problem  of  Wall  Street,  perhaps  ? 
Here  are  marvels  of  creative  power.  God  shaped  the  slope 
of  that  hill  as  really  as  though  he  smoothed  it  down  with 
his  hand.  And  he  who  understands  the  methods  of  world 
building,  of  landscape-sculpture,  may  stand  in  wonder  and 
awe  and  reverence  before  the  forces  that  have  been  at  work 
for  millions  of  years,  and  are  at  work  the  same  to-day. 
How  many  men  have  even  a  conception  of  the  wonders  of 
the  microscopic  world  ?  To  how  many  men  do  the  stars 


122  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

have  anything  to  say  at  night  ?  A  man  looks  at  a  bowlder, 
unlike  any  other  rock  there  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  perhaps  he  does  not  even  ask  a  question 
about  it ;  while  a  man  who  has  made  a  careful  study  of 
these  things  sees  spring  up  before  him  in  his  imagination 
that  long  ice  age  before  man  lived  on  the  planet,  when  this 
bowlder  was  swept  from  some  far-off  place  by  the  glacial 
power,  deposited  where  it  is,  scraped  on  its  surface  by 
the  passing  of  the  ice,  as  if  God  himself  had  left  his  sign- 
manual  here,  his  autograph,  that  he,  in  after-ages  who  might 
make  himself  capable  of  reading,  might  understand. 

These  merely  as  fragmentary,  brief  hints  of  what  it  is  to 
live  in  the  intellectual  realm. 

Go  up  to  that  realm  where  the  intellect  is  blended  with 
the  emotions, —  the  glamour  of  pictures,  poetry,  sculpture, 
music,  beauty  of  color  and  form  and  sound.  What  a  world 
this  is,  infinite  resources  of  an  infinite  universe,  appealing  to, 
and,  if  a  man  responds,  calling  out  the  faculties  and  powers 
of  his  own  nature  that  are  capable  of  dealing  with  these 
things,  so  that  a  man  may  feel  that  he  is  thinking  over  the 
thoughts  of  God,  tracing  his  footsteps,  listening  to  the  mar- 
vellous music  of  his  words !  This  is  one  of  the  results  of 
self-development,  if  a  man  is  unfolding,  developing  himself, 
becoming  as  much  as  possible. 

Now  let  us  turn  sharply  to  one  of  these  other  phases 
which  I  spoke  of,  —  of  doing  what  we  can  to  help  the  world. 
And  now  note,  this  universe  is  so  cunningly  contrived  that 
a  man  cannot  possibly  be  successful  as  a  selfish  man.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  conclusive  proofs,  it  seems  to  me,  not  only 
of  the  divine  goodness,  but  of  the  moral  meaning  and  scope 
of  the  world.  Selfishness  is  not  wicked  only,  it  is  the  most 
outrageous  folly  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  If  a  man  develops 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?          123 

himself,  if  he  develops  that  which  is  finest  in  him,  that  which 
is  best  and  sweetest  and  truest,  he  develops  not  only  his 
power  to  think,  but  his  capacity  to  love,  his  capacity  to 
enjoy,  and  to  bestow  enjoyment ;  and  he  cannot  possibly 
succeed  in  the  long  run,  and  in  the  best  ways,  on  selfish  lines. 

People  used  to  have  a  notion  that  he  who  grasped  and  re- 
tained everything  he  could  get  hold  of  was  the  fortunate,  the 
successful  man.  People  had  an  idea  in  politics,  for  example, 
that  that  nation  was  happiest  which  humbled  other  nations ; 
and,  if  it  was  superior  to  all  the  rest,  by  as  much  as  they 
were  poor  and  devastated,  this  nation  was  fortunate.  We 
know  now  that  a  nation  finds  its  prosperity  in  that  of  other 
nations,  in  its  ability  to  exchange,  to  trade,  to  carry  on  all 
the  grand  avocations  of  life  with  them.  If  a  man  writes  a 
book,  he  wants  the  world  intelligent  enough  to  understand 
and  appreciate  it.  If  a  man  paints  a  picture,  he  wants  artistic 
ability  on  the  part  of  the  public,  so  that  they  will  appreciate 
and  buy  his  pictures.  If  a  man  carves  a  statue,  he  wants 
the  people  to  appreciate  glory  of  form  enough  to  see  how 
great  and  true  his  work  is,  and  reward  him  for  his  endeavor. 
In  other  words,  no  man  would  write  a  book,  and  go  off  with 
it  alone  by  himself.  No  man  would  paint  a  picture,  and  hide 
it.  No  man  would  carve  a  statue,  and  conceal  it  from  his 
fellows. 

We  have  learned,  and  are  learning  constantly  in  every 
direction,  that  our  happiness  is  involved  in  the  happiness  of 
other  people.  The  world  is  haunted  to-day — and  I  thank 
God  that  it  is  —  with  the  thought  of  the  unhappiness,  the  mis- 
ery, of  men.  What  does  it  mean  ?  It  means  that  men  have 
developed  so  on  their  sympathetic  side  that  they  cannot  be 
happy  themselves  while  the  world  is  unhappy.  So  you  see 
that  this  self-development,  which  I  placed  as  the  chief  thing 


124  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

at  the  outset  in  the  meaning  of  life,  carries  with  it  the  neces- 
sity on  the  part  of  those  who  are  developed,  of  doing  every- 
thing they  can  to  develop  and  lift  up  everybody  else ;  so  that 
making  the  most  of  yourself  means  making  the  most  of 
everybody  else. 

And  now,  if  I  turn  for  a  moment  to  that  other  point,  merely 
to  distinguish  it  by  itself, —  although  I  have  been  dealing 
•with  it  all  the  while, —  the  end  and  aim  of  life  once  more  is 
to  be  happy.  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  the  old  Puritan 
theology  has  taught  otherwise,  so  far  as  this  life  is  concerned. 
I  was  brought  up  with  the  feeling  that,  if  I  wanted  to  do  any- 
thing, the  chances  were  it  was  wrong,  that  it  was  a  good  deal 
more  likely  to  be  in  the  way  of  virtue  if  it  was  something 
that  was  disagreeable  to  me.  And  yet,  curiously  enough, 
this  old  Puritan  theology  invented  and  held  up  before  men, 
as  a  lure  to  lead  them  to  virtue,  the  most  tremendous  bribe 
that  ever  entered  into  the  imaginations  of  men, —  eternal 
felicity  on  the  one  hand,  and  eternal  woe  on  the  other.  So 
that  it  conceded  the  very  thing  that  it  seemed  to  deny, —  that 
men  naturally  and  necessarily  sought  happiness,  and  could 
not  possibly  do  otherwise. 

And  so  we  learn  to  live,  to  think,  to  serve  others.  We  are 
beginning  to  learn  also  that  this  desire  for  happiness  is 
natural,  is  necessary,  is  right.  If  a  man  is  not  happy,  you 
may  be  sure  there  is  something  wrong.  If  there  is  pain  in 
the  body,  it  means  disease,  difficulty,  obstruction,  something 
out  of  the  way.  It  means  that  God's  laws  are  not  perfectly 
kept.  If  there  is  pain  up  in  the  mental  realm,  pain  in  the 
moral  realm,  pain  in  the  spiritual  realm,  it  means  always 
something  wrong.  Man  ought  to  be  happy.  He  ought 
to  seek  happiness  as  the  great  end  and  outcome  of  human 
life. 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?          125 

And  we  are  learning,  as  the  natural  and  necessary  result 
of  our  experiences  in  knowing  and  in  serving,  that  just  in  so 
far  as  we  know  the  laws  of  God,  just  in  so  far  as  we  obey 
the  laws  of  God,  just  in  so  far  as  we  help  others  to  know 
and  obey,  just  in  so  far  there  comes  into  our  lives  the  bless- 
edness of  the  blessed  God. 

The  end  of  life,  then,  the  object  of  life  here  on  earth,  is 
to  develop  ourselves  to  the  utmost.  It  is  to  learn  to  know, 
take  possession  of  our  inheritance,  this  earth,  control  all  its 
forces  for  the  service  of  civilization.  It  is  to  rejoice  in  all 
this  self-development,  in  all  this  help,  in  all  this  knowledge, 
in  all  this  power.  It  is  to  feel  ourselves  thrilling  with  the 
consciousness  that  we  are  sons  of  God,  and  are  co-operating 
with  him  in  bringing  about  the  grand  result  of  the  ages, — 
the  perfection  of  man. 

And  then  what  ?  Death  ?  This  is  only  one  stage  of  our 
career.  We  are  here  at  school ;  we  learn  our  lessons  or  we 
do  not ;  we  attain  the  ends  we  seek  after  or  we  only  partly 
attain  them  or  do  not  attain  them  at  all ;  and  then  we  go  on. 
Does  that  mean  that  it  ends  there  ?  I  do  not  believe  it.  I 
believe  that  it  simply  means  that  we  go  out  into  a  larger 
opportunity,  from  the  planet  to  the  system,  to  the  galaxy,  to 
the  universe,  wider  knowledge  answering  to  more  magnifi- 
cent resources  in  the  infinite  universe.  We,  with  undeveloped 
powers  that  may  increase  and  advance  forever,  and  a  universe 
so  complete,  so  exhaustless,  that  it  may  match  and  lure  and 
lead  and  rejoice  us  forever  ;  we  being  trained  as  God's  chil- 
dren in  God's  likeness  and  helping  others  to  attain  the  same 
magnificent  ends,  —  this  I  believe  to  be  the  significance,  the 
meaning,  the  purpose,  of  life. 

Are  there  any  here  this  morning  who  think  or  fear  that 
the  taking  away  of  the  old  idea  concerning  the  results  of 


126  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

dying  may  remove  moral  motive,  may  undermine  character, 
may  make  people  less  careful  to  do  right  ?  It  seems  to  me 
that,  if  people  understand  the  significance  of  this  universe 
and  their  relation  to  it,  they  will  find  that  all  the  carelessness 
of  motive,  the  ease  of  salvation,  as  they  call  it,  is  with  the  old 
idea.  Our  theory  is  a  more  strenuous  and  insistent  one. 
Men  are  learning  as  they  become  wiser  that  evil  is  not  only 
evil,  but  it  is  folly.  A  man  wishes  life,  health,  happiness, 
prosperity,  all  good.  He  learns,  as  he  goes  on,  that  the 
universe  is  in  favor  of  the  keeping  of  its  own  laws  ;  and  that, 
if  he  flings  himself  against  the  forces  of  the  universe,  he  is 
only  broken  for  his  pains.  If  you  wish  to  be  healthful, 
happy,  strong,  wish  to  attain  any  desirable  thing,  it  is  to  be 
found  not  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  universe,  but  in 
loving  and  tender  obedience. 

And,  then,  if  you  only  remember  that  in  this  universe  and 
under  the  universal  law  of  cause  and  effect  you  are  building 
to-morrow  out  of  to-day,  and  next  week  and  next  year,  and  all 
the  future,  that  every  thought,  every  word,  every  action,  is 
cemented  together  as  a  part  of  this  structure  that  you  build, 
that  you  can  make  your  own  future  for  good  or  ill,  and  that 
you  cannot  build  it  successfully  except  in  accordance  with 
the  eternal  laws  of  things,  then  you  find  that  here  are  the 
most  insistent  and  tremendous  motives  it  is  possible  for  the 
human  mind  to  conceive. 

This  life  of  ours,  if  we  lead  it  nobly  and  truly,  then,  we 
shall  find  to  be  a  growth  into  the  likeness  of  the  Divine,  a 
growth  into  an  increasing  opportunity  to  share  the  work  of 
our  Father  in  building  and  helping  men,  and  that,  as  the  re- 
sult of  this,  joy,  infinite  joy,  is  to  fill  our  hearts  until  we 
share  the  very  blessedness  of  our  Father. 


Is  Life  a  Probation  ended  by  Death?          127 

God  made  our  lives  to  be  a  song 

Sweet  as  the  music  of  the  spheres, 
That  still  their  harmonies  prolong 

For  him  who  rightly  hears. 

The  heavens  and  the  earth  do  play 

Upon  us,  if  we  be  in  tune : 
Winter  shouts  hoarse  his  roundelay, 

And  tender  sweet  pipes  June. 

But  oftentimes  the  songs  are  pain, 

And  discord  mars  our  harmonies  : 
Our  strings  are  snapped  by  selfish  strain, 

And  harsh  hands  break  our  keys. 

But  God  meant  music  ;  and  we  may, 

If  we  will  keep  our  lives  in  tune, 
Hear  the  whole  year  sing  roundelay, 

December  answering  June. 

God  ever  at  his  keyboard  plays, — 

Harmonics,  right ;  and  discords,  wrong : 

"He  that  hath  ears,"  and  who  obeys, 
May  hear  the  mystic  song. 


SIN   AND   ATONEMENT. 


For  the  sake  of  clearness,  and  in  order  that  you  may  defi- 
nitely comprehend  the  doctrine  of  sin  and  atonement  which 
I  believe  to  be  the  true  one,  I  need  in  the  first  place  to  out- 
line as  a  background  that  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all 
the  popular  theologies  of  Christendom.  I  am  perfectly  well 
aware  that  at  least  a  part  of  the  time,  while  I  am  doing  this, 
I  shall  be  traversing  ground  with  which  you  are  already 
familiar.  Some  of  it,  however,  I  think  may  be  somewhat 
strange  to  you. 

The  tradition  begins  with  the  story  of  a  war  in  heaven. 
In  some  way  rebellion  began  among  the  angels  ;  and  he  who 
had  been  Lucifer,  the  light-bearer,  prince  among  the  glori- 
ous sons  of  God,  took  up  arms  of  rebellion  against  the 
Almighty.  Naturally,  he  failed  in  this  inevitably  losing  bat- 
tle, and  was  cast  out  into  the  abyss,  with  a  third  part  of  all 
the  angels,  who  had  followed  him.  Then  the  tradition  goes 
on :  God  decided  to  create  the  world,  that  the  sons  of  men 
born  and  trained  here  might  ultimately  take  the  places  that 
had  been  held  by  the  angels  who  had  been  cast  out  on  ac- 
count of  their  sin.  But  Satan,  seeing  this  fair  and  beautiful 
earth,  this  wondrous  handiwork  of  God,  determined,  if  pos- 
sible, to  thwart  and  defeat  the  purposes  of  the  Almighty. 
He  therefore  invades  this  beautiful  world.  He  finds  Adam 
and  Eve  in  their  condition  of  perfect  felicity,  innocent,  but 
inexperienced ;  and  they  fall  a  ready  prey  to  his  intention. 


Sin  and  Atonement  129 

They  then  share  his  rebellion,  accept  him  instead  of  God  as 
king.  Henceforth  they  are  followers  of  him  in  his  age-long 
warfare  against  light  and  truth,  and,  unless  in  some  way 
saved,  are  to  be  sharers  of  his  eternal  destiny,  cast  out  into 
chains  and  darkness  forever. 

Now  comes  the  necessity  for  noting  for  a  moment  the 
nature  of  sin  on  this  theory.  You  see  it  is  not  ignorance,  it 
is  not  weakness  merely,  it  is  not  inherited  passion  only :  it 
is  conscious  and  purposeful  rebellion  against  God,  putting 
yourself  at  enmity  with  his  truth,  his  righteousness,  his  love. 
In  action  it  is  some  specific  deed  done  against  God  or 
against  his  truth  or  his  right.  As  a  state  of  mind,  it  is  a 
heart  perverted,  choosing  always  that  which  is  evil,  a  heart 
at  enmity  with  God  and  with  all  that  is  good  ;  and  the  theo- 
logians have  always  been  obliged,  as  a  matter  of  consist- 
ency, to  hold,  no  matter  how  noble,  how  unselfish  men 
might  appear  to  be,  that  the  natural  man  has  inherently, 
always,  necessarily  been  evil.  He  carries  about  with  him 
the  taint  of  original  sin ;  that  is,  sin  of  constitution,  in- 
grained, inherited,  that  which  is  of  the  very  fibre  of  his 
being.  This  is  the  character  of  man  as  required  by  the  old 
theological  systems ;  and  this  is  how  it  happened  to  come 
about.  Evil  is  not  something  natural,  not  imperfection,  not 
something  undeveloped,  not  yet  outgrown.  Sin  originated 
outside  of  this  world,  invaded  it,  and  worked  its  ruin  and 
destruction. 

Now  conies  the  device  that  has  been  called  the  Atone- 
ment, by  which  it  is  supposed  that  God  is  going  to  be  able 
to  save  at  least  a  part  of  this  rebellious  humanity.  There 
have  been  a  good  many  different  theories  of  the  atonement 
that  have  been  held,  eighteen  or  twenty  varieties  of  the  doc- 
trine, three  or  four  of  which  I  must  outline,  in  order  to  make 


130  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

them  clear  to  your  mind,  that  you  may  see  what  have  been 
the  devices  by  which  the  theologians  have  supposed  that 
they  could  find  a  way  for  the  deliverance  of  man  from  this 
condition  of  loss,  and  fit  him  to  share  the  felicity  for  which 
he  was  originally  intended. 

Of  course,  the  main  point  in  the  whole  scheme  is  that  the 
Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  becomes  incarnate,  comes 
down  here  to  this  world,  is  born,  grows  up,  teaches,  suffers 
and  at  last  is  put  to  an  ignominious  death.  This  is  the 
central  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement ;  or,  rather,  the 
Christ  is  the  central  figure  in  that  doctrine.  But  how  is  it 
supposed  to  work  out  the  atonement  that  is  necessary,  in 
order  that  man  may  be  saved  ?  You  will  see  that  the  world, 
according  to  the  ideas  I  have  been  delineating,  is  in  a  con- 
dition of  rebellion.  What  men  need  is  to  be  persuaded  that 
they  are  wrong,  convinced  of  sin,  in  theological  language, 
and  then  made  repentant,  and  in  some  way  be  forgiven  for 
the  wrong  which  they  have  done. 

Now  it  is  supposed  that  God  must  invent  some  scheme  by 
which  to  make  it  possible  for  him  to  save  these  lost  and 
fallen  men.  If  you  read  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son 
as  Jesus  has  so  tenderly,  touchingly,  beautifully  outlined  it 
for  us,  you  will  see  that  there  is  no  thought  or  plan  or  neces- 
sity for  either  in  that.  The  son  left  his  home,  followed  the 
impulses  and  passions  of  youth,  had  gone  among  those  that 
were  degraded,  had  soiled  his  character,  done  despite  to  his 
father's  love,  injured  his  own  nature,  degraded  himself  by 
his  associations  and  actions.  But  when  at  last  he  awakes, 
becomes  conscious  of  his  father's  love  and  righteousness  and 
truth,  and  says,  "  I  will  arise,  and  go  to  my  father,"  there  is 
no  talk  of  God's  not  being  ready  to  receive  him,  or  not  be- 
ing able  to  receive  him,  or  needing  to  have  something  done 


Sin  and  Atonement  131 

before  he  can  receive  him,  no  thought  of  anybody's  suffer- 
ing any  more  in  order  that  he  may  be  forgiven.  You  see  all 
these  elements  that  are  associated  with  the  popular  doctrines 
of  atonement  are  not  once  thought  of,  never  even  alluded 
to.  He  simply  arises,  and  goes  to  his  father ;  and  his  father 
is  so  anxious  to  help  him  that  he  goes  to  meet  him  before 
he  reaches  the  father's  house,  and  gladly  falls  on  his  neck 
and  kisses  him  and  folds  him  in  his  arms.  It  only  needs 
that  the  son  should  recognize  the  righteousness  and  good- 
ness of  his  father,  and  should  wish  to  go  back.  That  is  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  as  taught  in  this  wonderfully  sweet  and 
beautiful  parable. 

Now  what  are  the  theories  of  atonement  as  outlined  in 
the  popular  theology?  For  the  first  thousand  years  of 
Christian  history  one  of  the  strangest  conceptions  possessed 
the  ecclesiastical  mind  that  has  ever  been  dreamed  of.  It 
was  held  literally  that  through  the  sin  of  Adam  the  human 
race  had  become  the  rightful  subjects  of  Satan,  that  they  be- 
longed to  him.  He  was  their  king,  their  emperor,  their 
ruler,  and  had  a  right  to  them  in  this  world  and  the  next. 
And  so  some  diplomatic  negotiations  must  be  entered  into 
with  the  Devil,  in  order  to  deliver  a  certain  part  of  these  his 
subjects,  and  open  the  way  for  them  to  be  saved.  So  the 
Church  Fathers  taught  that  Satan  recognized  in  Christ  his 
old  adversary  in  heaven,  and  he  entered  into  a  bargain  with 
God  that,  if  he  could  have  Christ  delivered  over  to  him,  in 
exchange  for  that  he  would  give  up  his  right  to  so  many  of 
the  souls  of  men  as  were  to  be  saved  as  the  result  of  this 
compact.  So  the  work  of  the  atonement  used  to  be  preached 
as  being  this  sort  of  bargain  entered  into  with  Satan. 

But  note  what  quaint,  naive  ideas  possessed  the  minds  of 
people  at  that  time.  Satan  did  not  know  that  Jesus  pos- 


132  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

sessed  a  divine  nature,  and  that,  consequently,  he  could 
not  be  holden  of  death ;  and  so,  when  he  entered  into  this 
bargain,  he  was  cheated,  he  found  out  to  his  dismay  that 
he  had  lost  not  only  humanity,  but  Christ  also,  had  been 
defrauded  of  them  both.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  that  was  preached  during  the  early  centuries  of 
the  Christian  Church,  at  least  in  certain  parts  of  Europe. 

But  later  there  came  another  doctrine,  —  the  belief  that 
the  sufferings  of  the  Christ  were  a  substitute  offered  to  God 
for  what  would  have  been  the  sufferings  of  the  lost.  He 
was  made  sin  for  us,  he  who  had  known  no  sin,  as  the  New 
Testament  phraseology  has  it.  So  that  he,  being  infinite,  in 
a  brief  space  of  time  during  his  little  earthly  career,  during 
his  suspension  on  the  cross  and  his  descent  into  hell,  was 
able  to  suffer  as  much  pain  as  all  the  lost  would  have  suf- 
fered throughout  eternity.  And  this  suffering  of  the 
Christ  was  supposed  to  be  accepted  on  the  part  of  God  as 
the  substitute  for  that  which  he  would  have  exacted  on  the 
part  of  the  souls  of  those  that  for  his  sake  were  to  be 
saved. 

There  is  still  another  theory  that  I  must  mention  briefly, 
—  that  which  is  called  the  governmental  theory,  that  which  I 
was  taught  during  my  course  of  theological  instruction.  The 
idea  was  that  God  had  a  moral  government  to  maintain,  not 
only  on  this  earth,  but  throughout  the  range  of  the  universe 
among  all  his  intelligent  creatures,  and,  if  he  permitted  his 
laws  to  be  broken  without  exacting  an  adequate  penalty, 
then  all  governmental  authority  would  be  overthrown.  In 
other  words,  men  took  their  poor  human  legal  devices,  their 
political  ideals,  and  lifted  them  into  the  heavens,  made  them 
the  models  after  which  it  was  supposed  God  was  to  govern 
his  great,  intelligent  universe. 


Sin  and  Atonement  133 

So  they  said  that  God  would  be  willing  to  forgive,  he 
would  like  to  forgive,  he  was  loving  and  tender  and  kind, 
but  it  was  not  safe,  safe  for  the  interests  of  his  universal 
government,  for  him  to  forgive  any  one  until  an  adequate 
penalty  had  been  paid  in  expiation  of  human  sin. 

You  see,  according  to  this  theory,  it  does  not  apparently 
make  much  difference  who  it  is  that  suffers,  whether  it  is  the 
person  who  has  committed  the  sin  or  not ;  but  somebody 
must  pay  an  adequate  penalty,  and  Jesus  volunteered  to  do 
this,  to  be  the  victim,  and  so  to  deliver  man  from  the  righteous 
deserts  which  he  had  incurred  as  a  transgressor  of  the  law 
of  God. 

Gradually,  however,  as  the  world  became  civilized,  as 
wider  and  broader  thoughts  manifested  themselves  in  the 
human  mind,  as  tenderer  and  truer  feelings  took  possession 
of  the  human  heart,  these  theories  receded  into  the  back- 
ground ;  and  there  came  to  the  front  —  I  remember  the  bit- 
ter controversies  over  it  in  my  younger  days  —  what  was 
called  the  Moral  Theory  of  the  Atonement.  The  originator 
and  sponsor  for  this  theory  was  the  famous  Dr.  Horace 
Bushnell,  of  Hartford.  He  taught  that  God  did  not  need  the 
punishment  of  anybody  to  uphold  the  integrity  of  his  moral 
government.  He  taught  that  God  was  not  angry  with  the 
race,  and  did  not  care  to  exact  a  penalty  before  he  was 
ready  to  forgive  human  sin.  He  taught  that  the  inner  nature 
of  God  was  love,  and  that  in  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity he  came  to  earth,  was  born,  grew  up,  taught,  suffered, 
died,  as  a  manifestation  to  the  world  of  his  love,  of  his  good- 
ness, of  his  readiness  to  forgive  and  help,  and  that  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  atonement  as  thus  wrought  on  the  part  of  the 
Christ  was  in  its  revelation  to  men  of  the  love  and  saving 
power  of  righteousness. 


134  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

This  was  the  moral  theory  of  the  atonement.  It  was  not 
supposed  to  work  any  result  in  the  nature  of  God  or  his  dis- 
position towards  men.  Its  effect  was  to  work  along  the  lines 
of  human  thought  and  human  action :  it  was  to  affect  men, 
and  make  them  willing  to  be  saved  instead  of  making  God 
willing  to  save  them.  This  was  the  moral  theory  of  the 
atonement ;  and  you  will  see  how  it  gradually  approaches 
that  which  intelligent  and  free  men,  it  seems  to  me,  must 
hold  to-day  in  the  light  of  their  careful  study  of  human  his- 
tory and  human  nature.  It  is  almost  the  theory  which  is 
being  held  by  the  freest  and  noblest  men  of  to-day.  The 
difference  between  it  and  that  which  I  shall  in  a  moment 
try  to  set  forth  is  chiefly  that  Dr.  Bushnell  confines  this 
work  of  the  atonement  to  the  person  and  history  and 
character  of  one  man  instead  of  letting  all  men  share  in  this 
divine  and  atoning  work  which  is  being  wrought  out  through 
all  the  ages. 

Let  me  now  come  to  set  forth  what  I  believe  to  be  the 
simple  and  demonstrated  truth.  My  objections  against  this 
old  theory  are  threefold.  I  will  mention  them,  and  have 
done  with  them  in  a  word. 

In  the  first  place,  the  supposed  origin  of  sin  in  heaven 
seems  to  me  so  absurd  as  to  be  utterly  unthinkable.  This 
idea  of  war  in  heaven,  rebellion  against  God,  smacks  too 
much  of  the  Old  World  traditions,  of  the  mythologies  of 
Greece  and  Rome  and  of  other  peoples.  Jupiter  could  de- 
throne his  father,  the  god  Saturn,  because  Saturn  was  not 
almighty  and  all-wise.  These  gods  of  the  ancient  time  were 
merely  exaggerated  types  of  human  heroes  and  despots. 
There  could  be  war  among  them,  and  one  of  them  over- 
thrown ;  and  Jupiter  could  divide  the  universe,  after  he  had 
conquered  and  dethroned  his  father,  with  his  two  brothers. 


Sin  and  Atonement  135 

All  this  is  reasonable,  when  you  are  talking  about  finite 
creatures  ;  but  try  to  think  for  one  moment  of  an  archangel, 
a  pure  and  clear-eyed  intelligence,  deliberately  choosing  to 
rebel  against  Omnipotence  1  He  must  have  known  it 
would  be  utterly,  absolutely,  forever  hopeless  !  Intelligent 
creatures  do  not  rebel  under  conditions  like  that,  particu- 
larly when  you  combine  with  the  absolute  hopelessness  of 
the  case  the  fact  that  he  knew  he  was  choosing  misery,  suf- 
fering, forever. 

As  I  said,  the  whole  conception  of  the  origin  of  evil  that 
implies  the  rebellion  of  a  spiritual  being  who  knew  what  he 
was  doing  is  inexpressibly  absurd,  so  absurd  that  we  may 
dismiss  it  as  impossible.  If  there  were  any  such  rebellion, 
if  you  waive  the  absurdity  for  the  moment  and  consider  the 
possibility,  God  would  be  responsible  ;  for  he  made  him. 
The  whole  theory  is  not  only  absurd :  it  is  unjust  in  its  im- 
plications towards  both  God  and  man.  And  then,  and 
perhaps  we  need  not  say  any  more  about  it,  we  know  that 
it  is  not  true.  It  did  not  even  originate  in  the  Bible,  it  did 
not  even  originate  among  the  Jews :  it  is  nothing  in  the 
world  but  a  pagan  myth  imported  into  Jewish  tradition  just 
a  few  hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus.  It  is  of 
no  more  authority  in  rational  human  thought  than  the  story 
of  Jason  or  Hercules,  not  one  particle. 

Let  us  now  turn,  then,  to  what  we  know,  from  the  history 
of  man  and  the  scientific  study  of  the  universe,  to  be  some- 
thing approaching  the  reality  of  things.  People  have  al- 
ways been  talking  about  the  origin  of  evil.  It  is  not  the 
origin  of  evil  that  we  have  to  face  or  deal  with  or  explain  at 
all.  Let  me  ask  you  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  condi- 
tion of  the  world  when  man  first  appeared  on  this  planet. 
Here  among  the  lower  animals  were  what  ?  All  the  vices 


136  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

and  all  the  crimes  that  we  can  conceive  of,  only  they  were 
not  vices  nor  crimes  at  all.  There  were  all  the  external 
actions  and  all  the  internal  feelings  and  passions ;  but 
they  were  not  vices,  and  they  were  not  crimes.  Why? 
Because  there  was  no  moral  sense  which  recognized  any- 
thing better,  no  moral  standard  in  the  light  of  which  they 
might  be  judged. 

Here,  for  example,  in  this  lower  world,  were  all  hatreds, 
jealousies,  envies,  cruelties,  thefts,  greeds,  murders, —  every 
kind  of  action  that  we  speak  of  as  evil  in  man.  And  yet  I 
said  there  was  no  evil  there,  no  moral  evil  there,  because  there 
was  no  consciousness,  no  recognition,  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  lower  and  the  higher.  This  was  a  part  of  the 
natural  and  intended  order  of  the  development  of  life,  not  an 
accident,  not  an  invasion  from  the  outside,  not  a  thwarting  of 
the  will  of  God,  not  an  interference  with  his  purpose,  —  all 
of  this  a  part  of  the  working  out  of  his  purpose. 

Now,  when  man  appeared,  what  happened  ?  The  origin, 
not  of  evil,  but  the  origin  of  goodness.  A  conscience  was 
born.  Man  came  into  possession  of  a  moral  ideal,  in  the 
light  of  which  he  recognized  something  higher  than  this 
animalism  that  was  all  around  him,  and  became  conscious 
of  the  fact  that  he  must  battle  against  that,  and  put  it  under 
his  feet.  So  that  the  life  of  the  world,  from  that  day  to 
this,  has  been  the  growth,  the  gradual  increase,  and  the 
gradual  conquest  of  good  over  that  which  was  in  existence 
before. 

There  is  no  fall  of  man,  then,  there  is  no  conscious  and 
purposeful  rebellion  against  God  to  be  accounted  for,  there 
is  no  need  of  any  devil  to  explain  the  facts.  He  is  only  an 
encumbrance,  only  in  the  way,  only  makes  it  difficult  and 
practically  impossible  to  solve  our  problem. 


Sin  and  Atonement  137 

The  old  story  was  that,  after  the  rebellion,  pain  and  death 
and  all  evil  came  into  the  human  world ;  and  the  natural 
world  was  blighted.  Thorns  and  briers  and  thistles  sprang 
up  on  every  hand ;  and  animals  which  before  had  been 
peaceful  began  to  fight  and  destroy  each  other.  We  all 
know  this  to  be  a  childish  myth,  and  pagan.  The  actual 
history  of  the  world  has  been  something  entirely  other  than 
that. 

Now  I  do  not  wish  that  you  should  suppose  that  I  mini- 
mize evil,  that  I  make  light  of  sin,  that  I  do  not  properly 
estimate  the  cruelties  and  the  wrongs  that  have  devastated 
the  world.  I  need  only  suggest  to  you  that  you  look  in  this 
direction  and  that  to  see  how  hideous  all  these  evils  may  be  ; 
how  bitter,  how  cruel,  is  the  fruit  of  wrong  thoughts  and  of 
wrong  actions.  Look  at  a  man,  for  example,  divine  in  the 
possibilities  of  his  being,  but  through  vice,  through  drink, 
through  habits  of  one  kind  and  another,  corrupted  until  it  is 
an  insult  to  a  brute  to  call  him  brutal.  We  do  not  deny  all 
this.  Notice  the  cruelties  of  men  towards  each  other, —  the 
jealousies,  the  envies,  the  strifes,  the  warfares.  How  one 
class  looks  down  upon  and  treats  with  contempt  another 
that  is  a  little  lower !  How  masters  have  used  their  slaves ; 
how  tyrants  like  Nero  and  Caligula  have  made  themselves 
hideous  spectacles  of  what  is  possible  to  humanity,  on  a 
stage  that  is  world-wide  and  illuminated  by  the  flash-lights 
of  history ! 

I  do  not  wish  you  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  I  belittle, 
that  I  underestimate  these  evils,  only  we  do  not  need  any- 
thing other  than  the  scientific  and  historic  facts  of  the  world 
in  order  to  account  for  them.  What  is  sin,  as  science  looks 
at  it  and  treats  it?  Not  something  consciously  and  pur- 
posely developed,  not  something  originating  in  a  rebellion  in 


138  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

some  other  world  than  this.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  can 
very  easily  account  for  it  when  we  recognize  that  man  has 
been  gradually  coming  up  from  the  lower  orders  of  life,  and 
that  he  still  has  in  him  the  snake  and  the  hyena,  the  wolf, 
the  tiger,  the  bear, —  all  the  wild,  fierce  passions  of  the 
animal  world  only  partly  sloughed  off,  not  yet  outgrown ; 
when  you  remember  how  ignorant  he  is,  how  he  does 
not  understand  yet  the  meaning  of  these  divine  laws 
and  the  divine  life,  glimpses  of  which  now  and  then 
attract  his  attention  and  lure  him  on;  when  you  re- 
member that  selfishness,  misguided  by  ignorance,  can  be- 
lieve that  one  man  can  get  something  for  his  behoof  and 
happiness  and  good  at  the  expense  of  the  welfare  of  some- 
body else,  and  harm  come  only  to  the  person  that  is  de- 
frauded. Right  in  here,  if  I  had  time  to  treat  it  in  still 
further  detail,  it  seems  to  me  we  have  a  simple  and  adequate 
explanation  of  all  the  evil  that  has  ever  blasted,  blighted,  and 
darkened  the  history  of  man. 

Now,  man  being  this  kind  of  a  creature,  having  an  animal 
origin  as  well  as  a  divine  one,  gradually  climbing  up  out  of 
this  lower  life  and  looking  towards  God  as  his  ideal, —  what 
is  it  that  he  needs  ?  Is  there  any  need  of  atonement  ?  All 
need  of  atonement !  What  does  atonement  mean  ?  The 
word  itself  carries  its  clearest  explanation.  In  its  root  it 
means  "at  onement,"  —  healing  the  division,  whatever  its 
nature  or  kind,  bringing  man  into  one-ness  with  God  and 
men  into  one-ness  with  each  other. 

Now  let  me  suggest  to  you  a  little  as  to  the  things  that 
keep  man  and  God  apart,  keep  men  away  from  each  other ; 
and  they  will  suggest  the  atonement  that  is  needed  to  heal 
all  these  divisions,  and  bring  about  that  ideal  condition  of 
things  that  we  dream  of  and  pray  for  and  talk  about, — 


Sin  and  Atonement  139 

when  men  shall  perfectly  love  God,  and  when  they  shall  love 
each  other  as  themselves. 

What  is  it  that  keeps  man  from  God  ?  First,  it  seems  to- 
me, it  is  ignorance.  What  man  needs  in  order  to  bring  him 
into  oneness  with  God  is  first  to  have  some  clear  conceptions 
of  the  divine,  some  high,  sweet,  noble  thoughts  of  God,  some 
knowledge  of  the  laws  of  God  as  embodied  in  himself  and  in; 
the  universe  around  him.  Man  needs  intelligence,  then,  to- 
help  him,  needs  education. 

In  the  next  place,  he  needs  such  a  picture  of  God  as  shall 
make  him  seem  lovable.  You  cannot  make  the  human  heart 
love  that  which  seems  hateful.  The  picture  of  God,  as  he 
has  been  outlined  to  the  world  in  the  past,  has  repelled  the 
human  heart ;  and  I  do  not  wonder.  I  do  not  think  it  strange 
that  humanity  should  be  at  enmity  with  that  conception  of 
the  divine.  Make  God  the  ideal  of  all  that  is  noble  and 
sweet  and  lovely,  and  the  heart  will  be  as  naturally  attracted 
and  drawn  to  him  as  a  flower  is  toward  the  sun. 

Then  man  needs  to  have  his  spiritual  side  developed,  that 
in  him  which  is  akin  to  God,  so  that  he  shall  naturally  live 
out  the  divine  love.  Education,  then,  is  all  on  man's  side, 
you  will  see.  God  does  not  need  to  be  changed  :  we  need  to 
know  him,  to  love  him,  to  come  into  conscious  relationship 
with  him.  This  is  what  we  need,  so  far  as  our  relation  to 
God  is  concerned. 

Now  for  the  more  important  side ;  for  it  is  infinitely  the 
more  important  practically.  Let  me  speak  a  little  while  of 
the  work  of  atonement  between  man  and  man.  If  we  trace 
the  history  of  humanity,  we  find  that  men  were  scattered  in 
groups  all  over  the  world,  isolated,  separated  from  each 
other,  ignorant  of  each  other,  misunderstanding  each  other, 
hating  each  other,  fighting  each  other;  and  the  work  of 


140  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

civilization  means  to  bring  men  together,  to  work  out  an 
atonement  between  nation  and  nation,  religion  and  religion, 
family  and  family,  man  and  man. 

Here,  again,  as  in  the  case  of  God,  the  first  thing  that 
needs  to  be  overcome  is  ignorance.  Look  back  no  further 
than  our  late  war.  I  think  every  careful  student  of  that 
tremendous  conflict  is  ready  to  say  to-day  that,  if  the  North 
and  South  had  been  acquainted  with  each  other,  known  each 
•other  as  they  know  each  other  now,  the  war  would  have  been 
impossible.  We  need  to  know  other  men.  As  you  go  back, 
you  find  curious  traditions  illustrating  this  ignorance  of  dif- 
ferent nations  and  different  peoples  of  each  other.  Plato, 
for  example,  taught  it  as  a  virtue  that  the  Athenians  should 
hate  all  other  peoples  except  the  Greeks  and  all  other  Greek 
cities  except  Athens ;  and  they  spoke  of  the  outside  nations 
that  did  not  speak  Greek  as  barbarians,  people  who  could 
not  talk,  people  who,  when  they  essayed  to  speak,  said,  "  Ba, 
ba,"  misusing  words  and  expressions.  They  had  traditions 
of  men  who  carried  their  heads  under  their  arms,  who  had 
only  one  eye,  which  was  in  the  middle  of  their  forehead,  all 
sorts  of  monstrosities  in  human  shape,  antagonistic  to  the 
rest  of  mankind. 

Even  in  modern  times  those  ignorances,  misconceptions, 
and  prejudices  are  far  from  being  outgrown.  Lord  Nelson 
counted  it  as  a  virtue  in  an  Englishman  that  he  should  hate 
a  Frenchman  as  he  did  the  devil.  How  many  people  are 
there  to-day  who  look  with  an  unprejudiced  eye  upon  a  for- 
eigner ? 

The  things,  then,  that  keep  nations  apart  are  ignorance. 
Then  there  is  the  lack  of  sympathy.  You  will  find  people 
walking  side  by  side  here  in  our  streets,  people  in  the  same 
family,  who  find  it  impossible  to  understand  each  other. 


Sin  and  Atonement  141 

They  cannot  put  themselves  in  the  place  of  another ;  they 
cannot  comprehend  something  which  is  a  little  different 
from  what  they  are  accustomed  to  hear ;  not  only  cannot 
they  understand  it,  they  cannot  lovingly  or  patiently  look 
at  it.  Think  of  the  things  that  have  kept  people  apart  in 
physical  and  mental  and  spiritual  realms, —  the  rivers,  the 
mountain  chains,  the  oceans ;  differences  of  religion,  differ- 
ences of  language,  differences  of  civilization ;  different  ethi- 
cal ideas, — until  people  of  the  world  have  sat  looking  at  each 
other  with  faces  of  fear  and  antagonism  instead  of  with  the 
dawning  in  their  eyes  of  love  and  brotherhood. 

Now  what  the  world  needs  is  something  to  atone,  to 
bridge  over  these  differences,  to  bring  men  into  sympathetic 
and  loving  acquaintance  with  each  other.  I  wish  to  note 
two  or  three  things  that  have  wrought  very  largely  and 
effectively  in  this  direction.  Does  it  ever  occur  to  you  that 
commerce  is  something  besides  a  means  for  the  accumula- 
tion of  wealth  ?  Commerce  has  played  one  of  the  largest 
parts  in  the  history  of  this  world  in  atoning  the  differences, 
the  antagonisms,  between  nation  and  nation  and  man  and 
man.  It  has  taught  the  world  that  there  is  a  community  of 
interests,  and  that,  instead  of  fighting  each  other,  they  are 
mutually  blessed  and  helped  by  coworking,  co-operating, 
exchanging  with  each  other. 

So  the  inventors,  the  discoverers,  have  helped  to  bring 
about  this  sense  of  human  brotherhood,  this  community  of 
human  interests.  How  much,  for  example,  was  wrought 
when  the  electric  wire  was  placed  under  the  seas,  and,  in- 
stead of  allowing  weeks  and  weeks  for  a  misunderstanding 
to  grow  and  for  ill-feeling  to  ferment  between  England  and 
this  country,  puts  us  in  such  quick  relations  that  a  misap- 
prehension could  be  corrected  in  an  hour !  All  these  things 


142  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

have  helped  bring  the  world  together,  are  engaged  in  this 
magnificent  religious  service  of  atonement,  of  making  na- 
tions one,  making  humanity  one,  a  family. 

I  do  not  wish  you  to  suppose  that  I  misunderstand  or 
underestimate  the  work  of  the  Christ  in  this  direction.  He 
has  done  a  grander  work  of  atonement  than  any  other  figure 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  He  revealed  to  us  the  glory, 
the  tenderness,  the  love,  of  God,  and  so  lifted  the  heart  of 
the  world  towards  the  Father  as  no  other  one  man  has 
done  who  has  ever  lived.  And,  then,  he  lived  out  and 
manifested  the  glory,  the  tenderness,  the  wonder,  of  human 
character  and  human  life  as  hardly  any  other  man  who  has 
ever  lived ;  and  on  so  world-wide  a  stage  did  he  do  this  that 
the  influence  of  his  work  has  overrun  all  national  barriers, 
and  is  rapidly  coming  to  be  world-wide,  and  in  admiration 
of,  and  love  for  him,  Jew  and  Greek,  and  barbarian,  Scythian, 
Arabian,  European,  and  Asiatic,  all  the  nations  of  the 
world  are  becoming  one.  For  no  matter  what  their  theory 
may  be  about  him,  whether  they  hold  him  to  be  God  or 
man,  they  hold  the  ideal  that  he  set  forth  and  lived  to  be 
spiritually  human  and  nobly  divine.  So  Jesus  is  more  and 
more,  as  the  ages  go  by,  helping  us  to  one-ness  with  God, 
helping  us  into  sympathetic  one-ness  with  each  other. 

But  I  would  not  have  you  think  that  Jesus  is  the  only  one 
who  has  wrought  atonement  for  the  sin  of  the  world.  Every 
man  in  his  degree,  in  so  far  as  he  has  been  divine  and  hu- 
man, patient,  faithful,  has  rendered  service  to  the  world,  has 
done  his  part  in  bringing  about  this  magnificent  consumma- 
tion. 

Look  for  a  moment  at  Abraham  Lincoln.  Think  what  he 
did  by  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  his  life  for  liberty,  for  hu- 
manity, for  truth.  On  the  one  hand,  his  murderer  showed 


Sin  and  Atonement  143 

what  sin  may  come  to  in  its  ignorance,  its  misconception, 
its  antagonism  to  whatever  is  right  and  good  and  true.  And, 
on  the  other  hand,  he,  with  words  of  forgiveness  on  his  lips, 
words  of  human  love,  with  all  tenderness  and  charity  in  his 
heart,  illustrated  again  and  lived  out  the  sweetness  of 
divinity  and  the  tenderness  of  humanity. 

As  another  illustration,  human,  simple,  natural,  just  let  me 
say  a  word  concerning  the  act,  the  attitude,  of  General  Grant 
at  Appomattox.  He  did  more  at  the  surrender  of  Lee  to 
send  a  thrill  of  brotherly  sympathy  through  North  and  South 
and  help  wield  this  nation  into  one  than  he  could  have  pos- 
sibly done  by  the  most  magnificent  achievement  of  arms, 
when  he  refused  to  take  his  opponent's  sword ;  when  he 
let  the  officers  go  away  with  their  side-arms ;  when  he  told 
each  man  that  his  horse  or  his  mule  was  still  of  right  his 
because  he  would  need  it  to  begin  the  new  life  again  that 
was  before  him. 

Facts  like  these  suggest  the  naturalness,  the  humanness, 
as  well  as  the  God-likeness  of  the  work  of  atonement  that 
is  going  on  all  over  the  world,  as  it  climbs  and  swings 
slowly  up  out  of  the  darkness  and  into  the  light  of 
life.  Jesus  the  great  atoning  sacrifice  ?  Yes,  but  thousands 
on  thousands  of  others  atoning  in  just  the  same  divine  way, 
just  the  same  human  way,  just  as  naturally,  just  as  neces- 
sarily. Every  man  who  does  an  honest  day's  work,  every  man 
who  is  kind  and  loving  in  his  family,  every  man  who  is  help- 
ful as  a  neighbor,  every  man  who  stands  faithfully  by  his 
convictions  of  truth,  every  man  who  shows  that  he  cares 
more  for  the  truth  than  he  does  for  worldly  success,  that  he 
knows  that  in  that  truth  only  is  immortality,  and  that  it  is 
greater  and  better  and  sweeter  than  even  life, —  every  man 
who  consecrates  himself  in  this  way  is  doing  his  part 


144  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

towards  working  out  the  atonement  of  human  sin,  the  recon- 
ciliation of  man  with  God,  the  reconciliation  of  men  with 
each  other. 

Let  us,  then,  while  loving  Jesus,  while  reverencing  him  for 
the  grandeur  of  his  work  and  the  beauty  of  his  life, —  let  us 
rise  and  claim  kinship  with  him,  rise  to  the  dignity  and  glory 
of  the  thought  that  we  are  sons  of  God  as  he  was,  and  that 
we  may  share  with  him  the  grandest  service  that  one  man 
can  render  to  his  time,  the  helping  of  people  to  find  and  love 
and  serve  God,  the  helping  of  people  to  discover  and  love 
and  serve  each  other.  The  outcome  of  this  atoning  work  is 
simply  the  coming  of  that  time  which  we  speak  of  familiarly 
without  half  comprehending  it, —  when  the  world  shall  recog- 
nize the  universal  Fatherhood  o£  God  and  the  universal 
brotherhood  of  man. 


PRAYER,  AND   COMMUNION   WITH 
GOD. 


SOME  years  ago  I  heard  a  minister,  then  widely  known 
throughout  the  country,  say  in  a  public  address,  "  Prayer  is 
the  power  that  moves  the  arm  that  moves  the  world."  Can 
we  accept  that  to-day  as  a  definition  of  a  rational  view  of  the 
relation  in  which  we  stand  to  God  ?  Many  of  you  will  re- 
member that  not  long  ago  the  churches  and  the  scientific 
men  of  England  and  America  were  much  stirred  and  roused 
over  a  discussion  concerning  the  practical  efficacy  of  prayer. 
There  was  much  talk  of  what  was  called  the  "prayer-gauge." 
I  think  it  was  Professor  Tyndall  who  proposed  to  test  the 
question  as  to  whether  prayer  was  a  real  power  in  the 
physical  world ;  and  his  test,  if  I  remember  rightly,  was 
something  like  this.  He  said :  You  churchmen  claim  that 
prayer  is  able  to  heal  the  sick.  Now,  he  said,  let  us  take  a 
certain  hospital.  We  will  divide  it,  a  certain  number  of 
wards  on  one  side,  and  a  certain  number  of  wards  on  the 
other,  equalizing  so  far  as  we  can  the  nature  of  the  illnesses 
which  afflict  the  patients.  You  now  concentrate  as  much  as 
you  please,  and  as  many  as  you  please,  the  prayers  on  cer- 
tain wards  in  the  hospital,  and  we  will  commit  the  rest  to 
the  ordinary  treatment  of  the  physicians  ;  and  we  will  see  if 
you  are  able  to  produce  any  results. 

Against  a  certain  type  and  theory  of  prayer  I  suppose 
a  test  like  that  is  legitimate  enough ;  and  this  type,  this 


146  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

theory,  is  the  one  that  has  prevailed  throughout  Christen- 
dom largely  for  a  good  many  hundreds  of  years.  I  suppose 
you  can  remember  in  your  boyhood  —  some  of  you  are  as  old 
as  I  —  that  it  was  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  the  minister  to 
pray  earnestly  for  certain  things  that  intelligent  men  would 
hardly  think  of  praying  for  in  the  same  fashion  to-day.  It 
was  not  an  uncommon  thing,  a  few  years  ago,  to  have  a 
special  prayer-meeting  during  a  drought  in  the  endeavor  to 
prevail  upon  God  to  send  the  rain  ;  and  there  was  certainly 
a  Scriptural  warrant  for  it ;  for  Elijah  is  represented  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  having,  by  the  power  of  prayer,  shut  up 
the  heavens  for  three  years  and  a  half,  and  then  as  bring- 
ing rain  again  as  the  result  of  his  petition.  If  you  study 
the  Book  of  James, —  and  remember,  when  you  do  study  it, 
that  it  was  not  written  by  the  apostle,  but  by  some  unknown 
author  towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century, —  you  will 
see  that  he  teaches  that,  if  any  one  is  sick,  you  are  not  to 
send  for  a  physician.  The  brethren  are  to  assemble,  the  in- 
valid is  to  be  anointed  with  oil,  they  are  to  pray  over  him, 
and  the  explicit  and  unqualified  promise  is  given  that  the 
prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick.  And  yet  we  have  been 
confronted  for  ages  with  the  spectacle  of  people  breaking 
their  hearts  in  pleading  prayer  for  those  that  were  sick,  and 
seeing  them  fade  and  vanish  from  their  sight  in  spite  of 
their  petitions. 

I  have  heard  it  said  a  good  many  times  that  the  fame  of 
the  Cunard  line  of  steamships  touching  the  matter  of  the 
safety  of  its  passengers  was  to  be  explained  by  the  piety 
of  the  founders  of  the  line,  and  the  fact  that  they  prayed 
every  time  a  ship  sailed  that  it  might  safely  cross  the  seas 
and  land  its  passengers  without  accident  in  the  wished-for 
haven.  Are  there  no  prayers  for  other  lines?  Has  no  one 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  147 

ever  prayed  on  behalf  of  a  ship  that  did  meet  with  an  acci- 
dent ?  But  this  would  be  explained  on  this  theory  by  say- 
ing that  the  prayer  was  not  the  prayer  of  faith  or  that  there 
was  some  defect  in  it  somewhere. 

I  refer  to  these  things  simply  by  way  of  illustration  to 
recall  to  your  mind  that  prayer  used  to  be  supposed  to  be 
a  power  touching  the  winds,  the  waves,  the  prosperity  of 
the  crops,  insuring  safety  during  a  dangerous  journey ;  that 
it  was  a  power  that  was  able  to  heal  disease,  that  could 
accomplish  all  sorts  of  strange  and  startling  effects  in  the 
physical  realm. 

And  now  I  simply  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
naturalness  of  that  kind  of  prayer  in  the  olden  time.  To 
some  of  us  this  thought  may  seem  strange,  it  may  seem 
almost  absurd,  to-day ;  but  remember  it  was  not  strange,  it 
was  not  absurd,  in  the  times  when  the  old  theory  of  the 
universe  was  thoroughly  believed  in,  not  only  by  church 
members,  but  by  scientific  men  as  well. 

What  was  that  old  conception  ?  I  have  had  occasion  to 
refer  to  it  in  one  connection  or  another  a  good  many  times ; 
and  now  I  shall  have  to  refer  to  it  again,  so  that  you  may 
clearly  see  what  is  involved  in  this  question  of  the  efficacy 
of  prayer.  God  was  supposed  to  be  up  in  heaven,  away 
from  nature.  Nature  was  a  sort  of  mechanism,  a  machine 
that  ordinarily  ran  on  after  its  own  fashion.  God  had  made 
it, —  indeed,  in  some  sense,  God  supported  it  continually ;  but 
it  went  on  apart  from  him,  and  he  was  away  from  it.  He 
was,  as  Carlyle  used  to  say,  looked  upon  as  an  absentee 
God.  He  was  up  in  heaven.  He  ruled  this  world  as  the 
Kaiser  rules  Germany,  arbitrarily.  He  was  not  even  always 
supposed  to  know  everything  that  was  going  on, —  at  least, 
if  you  are  to  judge  by  the  tone  of  the  prayers  of  a  good 


148  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

many  people  such  as  I  have  heard.  He  needed  information 
concerning  matters.  He  needed  to  be  pleaded  with,  that  he 
might  interfere  and  accomplish  some  results  that  would  not 
otherwise  take  place.  He  ruled  the  world  arbitrarily  and 
from  a  distance. 

Now,  if  any  German  wishes  a  certain  thing  accomplished 
that  would  not  happen  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  and 
human  life,  he  knows  that  the  Kaiser  has  almost  unlimited 
power ;  and,  if  he  can  persuade  him  to  undertake  it,  it  may 
be  accomplished.  So  he  will  send  a  petition  to  the  Kaiser ; 
and  he  will  back  that  petition  with  all  the  influence  that  he 
is  able  to  bring  to  bear  upon  it.  If  there  is  a  prime  minis- 
ter who  stands  specially  high  in  favor  with  the  Kaiser,  do 
you  not  see  how  much  might  be  accomplished  by  winning 
his  ear,  and  getting  him  to  intercede  on  behalf  of  the  peti- 
tioner ?  Do  you  not  see  right  in  there  the  parallel  to  the 
old  idea  that  used  to  dominate  us  in  regard  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  universe  ?  If  only  we  could  get  God  interested 
in  the  matter,  if  we  could  bring  to  bear  upon  him  an  ade- 
quate amount  of  influence,  if  we  could  get  Jesus  to  intercede 
with  him,  then  something  might  be  accomplished. 

Are  these  antiquated  ideas  ?  I  received  a  letter  only  a 
little  while  ago.  It  told  me  nothing  new ;  but  it  came  to  me 
with  a  shock,  roused  me  to  a  recognition  of  ideas  still  domi- 
nant and  popular  in  the  common  mind.  It  was  from  a 
Catholic.  He  said :  We  do  not  worship  Mary ;  but  she  is  in 
the  spirit  world,  and  she  is  in  sympathetic  relation  with  this 
world's  sorrow  and  trouble.  We  pray  to  her,  asking  her  to 
intercede  with  her  son,  "  because  a  mother's  influence  is  effi- 
cacious." Think  for  a  moment  of  the  implications  of  this 
theory  of  governing  the  universe.  God  is  away  off,  has 
forgotten  us,  or  does  not  care, —  at  any  rate,  is  not  doing  for 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  149 

us  the  things  we  need.  If  we  can  get  Jesus  to  intercede  1 
But,  according  to  this  Catholic  theory,  Jesus  had  perhaps 
forgotten  or  was  not  attentive.  So  he  pleads  with  his  mother, 
and  gets  the  mother  to  exert  her  influence  on  Jesus  so  he 
may  exert  his  influence  on  God,  and  at  last  something  may 
be  done.  I  confess  to  you,  friends,  that  this  theory  of 
things  does  not  seem  piety  to  me,  but  the  precise  opposite. 

I  ask  you  now  to  follow  me  while  I  attempt  to  point  out 
some  of  the  difficulties  that  confront  us  in  this  old-time 
theory  of  prayer.  Why  is  it  that  we  cannot  pray  to  God  to 
change  the  order  of  the  natural  world  ?  Why  cannot  we 
believe  that  "  prayer  is  the  power  that  moves  the  arm  that 
moves  the  world?"  Why  cannot  I  consistently  pray  to  God 
to  heal  my  disease  or  the  disease  of  a  friend,  or  to  save  the 
soul  of  some  friend  who  would  otherwise  be  neglected  by  the 
divine  care  ?  Why  cannot  I  any  longer  pray  to  God  to  send 
his  light  and  truth  to  the  heathen  world  ?  Why  cannot  I 
pray  to  him  to  insure  my  safety  in  mid- Atlantic,  to  do  some- 
thing to  prevent  my  colliding  with  a  derelict,  as  the  "  Veen- 
dam  "  has  done  during  the  last  few  days  ?  Do  you  think 
there  was  no  one  on  that  ship  that  prayed  ?  What  is  the 
difficulty  in  the  mind  of  the  intelligent,  modern  thinker 
when  he  faces  this  conception  of  prayer  ? 

Let  us  think  a  little  clearly  just  a  moment;  and  I 
imagine  I  can  make  it  plain.  We  no  longer  think  of  God  — 
we  cannot  think  of  him  —  as  outside  the  system  of  nature, 
and  as  possibly  interfering  with  it  to  produce  a  result  that 
would  not  otherwise  take  place.  Why?  Because  God  is 
the  soul,  the  mind,  the  heart  of  nature.  The  forces  of  the 
universe,  acting  according  to  their  changeless  and  eternal 
laws,  are  simply  God  at  work.  And,  when  I  pray  to  God  to 
interfere,  I  am  praying  him  to  interfere  with  himself,  I  am 


150  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

praying  him  to  contradict  his  own  wisely  and  eternally  and 
changelessly  established  methods  of  controlling  the  world. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked,  But  a  man  can  inter- 
fere with  the  course  of  nature,  and  produce  a  result  that 
would  not  be  naturally  produced  without  it?  Certainly, 
because  man  does  not  stand  in  this  relation  to  natural 
forces.  But  man,  however,  does  not  change  any  law,  he 
does  not  interfere  with  any  law.  He  simply  discovers  some 
law  and  obeys  it,  and  in  that  way  produces  a  result  that 
would  not  otherwise  be  produced.  But  man  does  not  stand, 
I  say,  in  this  vital  relation  to  the  forces  of  the  universe  and 
their  laws.  When  you  remember  that  these  forces  working, 
as  I  said,  changelessly,  eternally,  after  their  methods, — 
when  you  remember  that  these  are  God  in  his  ceaseless  and 
wise  and  loving  activity, —  then  do  you  not  see  that  he  can- 
not contradict  or  interfere  with  himself  ?  Here  is  the  great 
difficulty  in  regard  to  this  old  method,  this  old  conception 
of  prayer  which  confronts  the  intelligent,  the  educated,  the 
thoughtfully  devout  man. 

When  I  was  first  struggling  out  into  the  light  —  as  it 
seems  to  me  now  —  from  my  old  theological  training,  I  met 
another  difficulty  that  I  think  will  appeal  to  you.  It  seemed 
to  me  an  impertinence  for  me  to  be  telling  God,  as  I  heard 
so  many  people  on  every  hand,  all  sorts  of  things  that  he 
knew  before.  I  reconsidered  the  words  of  Jesus, —  You  are 
not  to  give  yourself  to  much  speaking  in  your  prayers,  for 
your  Father  knoweth  what  you  have  need  of  before  you  ask 
him.  And  then  there  was  another  difficulty  which  troubled 
me  more  than  any  of  the  others, —  a  delightful,  splendid 
difficulty  it  has  seemed  to  me  since  those  days.  It  was  con- 
nected with  the  thought  of  God's  goodness  and  love.  There 
are  heathen,  they  tell  us,  who  have  got  a  glimpse,  from  their 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with   God  151 

point  of  view,  of  this  fact  about  God.  It  is  said  they  do 
not  bring  any  offerings,  except  some  flowers,  to  the  deities 
they  regard  as  good,  because,  they  say,  they  do  not  need  to 
be  persuaded.  They  bring  all  their  costly  offerings  to  the 
bad  gods,  the  ones  they  are  afraid  of  ;  and  they  attempt  to 
buy  their  favor  or  buy  off  their  anger. 

When  I  waked  up  to  the  free  and  grand  conception  of 
the  eternal  love  and  the  boundless  goodness  of  the  Father, 
then  it  seemed  to  me  that  many  of  my  prayers  in  the  past 
had  been  so  far  from  reasonable  that  they  were  absurd,  and 
so  far  from  piety  that  they  were  wrong.  To  illustrate  what 
I  mean.  When  I  was  minister  of  an  orthodox  church  in 
the  West,  a  lovely,  faithful  lady  came  to  me  to  raise  some 
question  touching  this  matter  of  prayer.  It  had  been  sug- 
gested, I  suppose,  by  something  I  had  said ;  and  I  asked 
her  this  question  :  What  would  you  think  of  me  if  I  should 
come  to  you,  and  with  pathos  in  my  voice,  and  perhaps  with 
tears  in  my  eyes,  plead  with  you  to  be  kind  to  your  own  chil- 
dren, beg  you  to  give  them  something  to  eat,  beseech  you  to 
furnish  them  with  clothes,  entreat  you  to  educate  them,  to 
do  the  best  for  them  that  you  knew  how  ?  What  would  you 
think  of  it  ?  I  asked.  She  said,  I  should  feel  insulted.  And 
I  replied,  Do  you  not  think  that  God  is  almost  as  good  as 
you  are  ? 

If  you  are  anxious  and  ready,  do  you  think  that  God 
needs  to  be  pleaded  with  and  entreated  and  besought  in  order 
to  make  him  willing,  in  order  to  make  him  kind,  in  order 
to  bring  some  sort  of  pressure  to  bear  upon  him  so  that  he 
will  do  the  things  for  his  children  of  which  they  most  stand 
in  need  ?  No  scientific  difficulty,  no  question  of  theories  of 
the  universe,  has  ever  affected  my  practice  in  the  matter  of 
prayer  so  much  as  this  overwhelming,  blessed  thought  of 


152  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

the  loving-kindness  and  care  of  the  infinite  Father.  He 
does  not  need  to  be  informed,  he  does  not  need  to  be  per- 
suaded. Has  not  Jesus  told  us  that  your  heavenly  Father 
is  more  ready  to  give  the  things  which  you  need  than  you 
are  to  give  good  gifts  to  your  children  ? 

And  so  I  came  to  have  a  difficulty  with  the  kind  of 
prayer-meetings  in  which  I  was  brought  up  as  a  boy,  and 
which  I  used  to  lead  as  a  young  and  earnest  minister.  I 
have  heard  kinds  of  prayers  which  have  seemed  to  me  re- 
flections on  the  goodness  and  the  kindness  of  our  Father  in 
heaven.  I  remember  one  man  —  I  used  to  hear  him  over 
and  over  again,  week  by  week  —  who  would  pray,  "It  is 
time  for  thee,  O  God,  to  work  "  !  And,  as  I  came  to  think 
of  it,  it  hurt  my  sense  of  reverence.  I  shrank  from  it.  And 
I  could  not  believe  that  God  was  going  to  let  thousands  of 
souls  in  China  or  Africa  perish  merely  because  Christians  in 
America  did  not  pray  hard  enough  and  long  enough  for 
their  salvation.  Why  should  they  meet  with  eternal  doom 
on  account  of  the  lack  of  enthusiasm  or  devotion  of  people 
of  whom  they  have  never  heard  ? 

So  I  used  to  find  myself  troubled  about  this  question  of 
praying  so  hard  for  the  salvation  of  other  people's  souls. 
If,  as  the  old  creeds  tell  us,  it  is  settled  from  all  eternity  as 
to  just  who  is  to  be  saved  and  who  is  to  be  lost,  there  would 
hardly  seem  place  for  a  vital  prayer ;  and  if,  as  a  friend  of 
mine,  a  minister,  and  a  very  liberal  and  broad  one,  though  in 
one  of  the  older  churches,  said  to  me,  "  I  believe  that  God 
will  save  every  single  soul  that  he  can  save,"  then  do  you 
not  see  again  that  it  touches  this  kind  of  prayer?  If  he 
cannot  save  them,  then  why  should  I  beg  him  to  do  it  ?  If 
he  can,  and  loves  them  better  than  I  do,  again,  why  should 
I  plead  with  him  after  that  fashion  to  do  it  ? 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  153 

These,  frankly  and  freely  spoken,  are  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties connected  with  a  certain  theory  of  prayer. 

I  gladly  put  all  that  now  behind  my  back,  and  come  to 
the  grand  and  positive  side  of  my  theme.  I  wish  to  tell 
you  what  I  myself  believe  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  prayer. 
And,  in  the  first  place,  let  me  suggest  to  you  that  prayers, 
even  the  prayers  of  the  past, —  any  of  them,  the  most  objec- 
tionable types, —  are  not  made  up  only  of  petition ;  they  are 
not  all  begging,  teasing  for  things.  There  enter  into  their 
composition  gratitude,  adoration,  reverence,  aspiration,  a 
sense  of  communion  with  the  spiritual  Being,  a  longing  for 
higher  and  finer  things ;  a  sense  of  refuge  in  time  of 
trouble,  a  sense  of  strength  in  time  of  need,  a  sense  of 
hope,  uplift,  and  outlook  as  we  glance  towards  the  future. 
A  prayer,  then,  you  see,  is  a  very  composite  thing, —  not  a 
simple  thing,  not  merely  made  up  of  the  element  of  pleading 
with  God  to  give  us  certain  things  that  we  cannot  come 
into  possession  of  by  ordinary  means. 

Right  here  let  me  stop  long  enough  to  ask  you  to  attend 
a  little  carefully  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  the  subject  of 
prayer.  You  will  see  he  chimes  in  almost  perfectly  with  the 
things  I  have  been  saying.  If  we  followed  his  directions 
literally,  we  should  never  pray  in  public  at  all.  He  says, 
Enter  into  your  chamber,  and  shut  to  the  door,  and  commune 
with  the  Father  in  secret.  He  does  not  advocate  long 
prayers,  nor  this  kind  of  pleading,  begging  prayers  that  I 
have  referred  to.  Do  you  remember  the  story  of  the  unjust 
judge?  Jesus  tells  this  parable  on  purpose  to  enforce  the 
point  I  have  been  speaking  of.  He  says :  Here  is  an  unjust 
judge :  a  widow  brings  her  case  before  him.  She  pleads  with 
him  until  she  tires  him  out ;  and  at  last  he  says,  Although  I 
am  an  unjust  judge,  and  fear  neither  God  nor  men,  because 


154  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

with  her  continual  praying  she  wearies  me,  I  will  grant  her 
petition.  Jesus  does  not  say  you  are  to  weary  God  out  in 
order  to  get  your  petitions  granted,  but  just  the  opposite. 
How  much  more  shall  God  give  good  gifts  unto  those  that 
ask  him !  Read  once  more  that  other  story  of  the  man  who 
rises  at  night  and  goes  to  a  neighbor  for  assistance.  The 
neighbor,  for  the  sake  of  being  gracious  and  kind,  will  rise, 
although  it  gives  him  trouble  and  he  does  not  wish  to,  and 
grant  his  request.  But  God  is  not  like  that  neighbor :  he 
does  not  need  to  be  wearied  or  roused  to  make  him  care 
for  our  interests. 

This  is  the  teaching,  you  will  notice,  of  Jesus.  If  there 
is  anything  that  appears  like  contrary  teaching,  you  will  find 
it  in  the  supposed  Gospel  of  John,  written  by  an  anonymous 
author,  in  which  quite  different  doctrines  are  taught  in 
regard  to  a  good  many  things  from  those  that  are  reported 
of  Jesus  in  the  other  gospels. 

Now  I  wish  to  come  to  my  own  personal  position  con- 
cerning the  subject  of  prayer.  It  is  fitting  —  is  it  not?  — 
that  we  should  open  our  hearts  with  gratitude  to  God,  no 
matter  what  has  come  to  us  of  good  or  bright,  of  beautiful, 
sweet  and  true  things,  no  matter  through  what  channel,  by 
the  ministry  of  what  friend,  as  the  result  of  the  working  of 
no  matter  how  many  natural  forces.  Trace  it  to  its  source, 
and  that  source  is  always  of  necessity  the  one  fountain, 
the  one  eternal  Giver.  And,  if  there  be  no  more  than 
courtesy  in  our  hearts,  ought  it  not  to  be  easy  and  fitting 
for  us  to  think,  at  least,  if  we  do  not  say,  Thank  you, 
Father  ? 

Not  only  thanksgiving,  but  adoration. 

Any  uplook  to  something  beautiful  and  high  and  fine 
above  you  partakes  of  the  nature  of  worship.  So  that  prayer 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  155 

which  is  worship,  is  it  not  altogether  fitting  and  sweet  and 
true  ?  Only  as  we  look  up  do  we  ever  rise  up,  do  we  ever 
attain  to  anything  finer  and  better. 

And  then  there  is  communion.  Is  it  true  that  God  is 
Spirit,  and  that  he  is  Father  of  his  children,  also  spirit  ?  Are 
we  made  in  his  likeness?  Is  there  community  of  nature 
between  him  and  us  ?  I  believe  that  he  is  human  in  all  es- 
sential qualities,  and  that  we  are  divine  in  all  essential  quali- 
ties. I  believe  the  only  difference  between  God  and  man  is 
a  difference  not  of  kind,  but  of  degree,  and  that  there  is 
possibility  of  constant  interchange  of  thought,  of  feeling,, 
communion,  between  God  and  his  children.  Profound,  won- 
derful truth  it  seems  to  me  is  expressed  in  those  beautiful 
words  of  Tennyson's  :  — 

"  Speak  to  him  thou,  for  he  hears, 

And  spirit  with  spirit  may  meet. 
Closer  is  he  than  breathing, 
And  nearer  than  hands  and  feet." 

Communion  then  possible,  the  very  life  of  that  which  is 
divine  within  us ! 

Then  I  do  not  believe  for  one  moment  that  prayer  is  only 
a  sort  of  spiritual  gymnastics,  that  it  produces  results  in  us 
merely  by  the  exercise  of  spiritual  feelings  and  emotions.  I 
believe  that  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  realms  prayer  does 
produce  actual  results  that  would  not  be  produced  in  any 
other  way.  This,  however,  mark  you  carefully,  not  by  pro- 
ducing any  change  in  God,  only  changing  our  relations 
towards  God.  Can  I  illustrate  it?  I  have  a  flower,  for 
example,  a  plant  in  a  flower-pot  in  my  room.  It  seems  to  be 
perishing  for  the  lack  of  something.  It  may  be  that  the 
elements  in  the  air  do  not  properly  feed  it :  it  may  be  that  it 


156  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

is  hungry  for  light.  At  any  rate,  I  try  it :  I  take  it  out  into 
the  sunshine,  I  let  the  air  breathe  upon  it,  the  dews  fall 
upon  it,  the  rains  touch  it  and  revive  it ;  and  the  plant 
brightens  up,  grows,  blossoms,  becomes  beautiful  and  fra- 
grant. Have  I  changed  natural  laws  any  ?  Not  one  par- 
ticle. I  have  changed  the  relation  of  my  plant  to  the  sun 
and  the  air ;  and  I  have  produced  a  result  of  life  and  beauty 
'where  would  have  been  ugliness  and  death. 

So  I  believe  in  prayer  in  that  sense, —  that  it  may  and 
•does  change  the  spiritual  attitude  of  the  soul  towards  God  so 
that  we  come  into  entirely  new  relations  with  him,  and  the 
spiritual  life  in  us  grows,  unfolds,  becomes  beautiful  and 
sweet,  not  because  we  have  changed  God,  but  because  we 
have  got  into  a  new  set  of  relations  with  him. 

If  I  thought  that  I  could  change  God  by  a  prayer,  that 
I  could  interfere  in  the  slightest  degree  with  the  working  of 
any  of  the  natural  forces,  I  would  never  dare  to  open  my 
lips  in  prayer  again  so  long  as  I  live.  We  do  not  need  to 
change  God :  we  need  simply  to  change  our  attitude  towards 
him,  change  our  relations  to  him.  Is  not  this  true  in 
every  department  of  human  life  ?  How  is  it  that  you  pro- 
duce results  anywhere  ?  You  wish  a  mountain  stream  to 
work  for  you.  Do  you  change  the  laws  of  motion  ?  You 
adapt  your  machinery  to  those  laws  of  motion,  and  all  the 
power  of  God  becomes  yours.  You  do  not  change  him,  you 
change  yourself, —  your  attitude  towards  him.  And  so  in 
every  one  of  the  discoveries,  in  every  one  of  the  revolutions, 
that  have  come  to  the  world, —  simply  by  discovering  God's 
methods,  and  humbly  adapting  our  ways  to  those  methods  ! 
Thus  the  forces  of  God,  which  are  changeless  and  eternal, 
produce  for  us  results  which  they  would  not  have  produced 
but  for  adapting  our  lives  to  the  working  of  their  ways. 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  157 

A  great  many  people  do  not  think  they  ever  pray.  I  have 
never  seen  a  man  yet  who  did  not  pray.  You  cannot  live, 
and  not  pray  :  you  cannot  escape  it  if  you  try.  Take  Mont- 
gomery's famous  old  definition, — 

"  Prayer  is  the  soul's  sincere  desire, 

Uttered  or  unexpressed, 
The  motion  of  a  hidden  fire 

That  trembles  in  the  breast." 

"  Soul's  sincere  desire."  Yes,  the  body's  desire,  the  mind's 
desire,  the  heart's  desire,  any  desire,  any  outreach  of  life,  is 
a  prayer, —  an  appeal  for  something  that  only  the  universe, 
that  only  God,  can  bestow.  So,  no  matter  whether  you  think 
you  are  religious  or  not,  you  are  a  praying  man  so  long 
as  you  are  a  living  man ;  and  you  cannot  escape  the  fact  if 
you  try.  It  is  merely  a  question  whether  you  are  a  loving 
praying  man  or  some  other  kind. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  prayer  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
your  attention.  Prayer  is  the  refuge  of  a  soul  in  trouble. 
It  does  not  mean  here,  again,  that  you  change  God  any.  Can 
you  not  understand  what  it  means  to  go  to  God,  as  it  were, 
and  fling  yourself,  like  a  child,  against  his  breast  and  feel 
yourself  folded  in  the  everlasting  arms  ?  Your  sorrow  may 
not  be  removed,  the  burden  may  not  be  taken  away,  the  life 
of  your  friend  may  not  be  saved,  the  sickness  may  not  be 
healed;  but  there  is  comfort,  there  is  strength,  there  is 
peace,  there  is  help.  Why,  even  in  our  human  life  do  you 
not  know  how  it  is  ?  You  go  to  some  friend  you  trust  and 
love  with  your  trouble.  Perhaps  he  cannot  lift  it  with  one 
of  his  fingers  ;  but  he  can  tell  you  that  he  loves  you,  he  cares, 
he  would  help  you  if  only  he  were  able.  He  can  put  his 
arm  around  you,  he  can  say,  God  bless  you ;  and  you  are 


158  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

stronger.  You  go  away  with  lifted  shoulder  and  with  head 
that  fronts  the  heavens ;  and  you  are  able  to  bear  the  burden. 

Is  there  nothing  akin  to  this  in  the  sense  of  coming  into 
intimate  relations  with  the  eternal  Father,  when  troubled, 
pressed,  when  the  outside  world  is  dark,  and  feeling  that 
here  is  refuge  in  a  love  deeper,  higher,  unspeakably  more 
tender  than  that  of  the  dearest  friend  that  ever  lived  ? 

And  this  suggests  another  point.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
sometimes,  in  my  attempts  to  lead  the  devotions  of  this  con- 
gregation, I  use  words  which,  if  I  were  to  sit  down  and 
critically  analyze,  I  could  not  logically  justify.  I  do  not 
mean  to ;  but,  perhaps,  sometimes  I  do.  What  of  it  ?  When 
my  children  were  small,  and  my  little  boy  came  and  climbed 
up  in  my  lap  and  expressed  himself  in  all  sorts  of  illogical 
and  foolish  ways,  telling  me  every  sort  of  thing  he  wanted, — 
impossible  things,  unwise  things,  things  I  could  not  get  for 
him,  things  I  would  not  get  if  I  could,  because  I  thought 
myself  wiser  than  he, —  did  these  things  trouble  me  ?  I 
loved  to  have  him  pour  out  his  whole  little  soul  into  mine, 
because  he  was  my  child  and  because  I  did  not  expect  him 
to  be  over-wise.  It  was  this  simple  touch  of  kinship,  this 
simple  communion  of  father  and  child,  which  was  sweet  and 
tender  and  true. 

So  I  believe  with  my  whole  soul  that  God  loves  us,  his 
little  children,  with  an  unspeakable  tenderness, —  a  tender- 
ness infinitely  beyond  that  with  which  any  earthly  father  ever 
loved  a  child,  and  that  we  can  go  to  him  freely  and  pour 
out  our  hearts,  whether  it  is  wise  in  expression  or  unwise  ; 
only  let  us  do  it  with  the  feeling,  "  Not  my  will,  Father,  but 
Thine,  be  done,"  —  not  as  though  we  were  trying  to  per- 
suade him  to  do  things  for  us  that  he  would  not  otherwise 
do,  but  merely  as  the  pouring  out  of  our  gratitude,  our  ten- 
derness, our  love. 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  159 

There  is  another  thing  that  needs  just  a  word  of  sugges- 
tion. I  believe  that  we  ought  to  pray  to  God,  not  in  the 
sense  of  begging  for  things,  but  sympathetically  bringing  in 
the  arms  of  our  sympathy  all  those  we  love  and  all  those  we 
hate, —  if  there  are  any, —  and  all  things  that  live  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.  There  is  a  hint  of  what  I  mean  in  those 
beautiful  words  of  Tennyson's :  — 

"  For  what  are  men  better  than  sheep  or  goats 
That  nourish  a  blind  life  within  the  brain, 
If,  knowing  God,  they  lift  not  hands  in  prayer 
Both  for  themselves  and  those  who  call  them  friend  ? 
For  so  the  whole  round  earth  is  every  way 
Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God." 

Let  us  reach  out  our  arms  of  sympathy  to  all  the  world  and 
bring  the  world  sympathetically  into  the  presence  of  our 
Father.  So  our  own  hearts  and  loves  will  broaden,  until 
they,  too,  are  divine. 

And,  then,  there  is  one  other  thing.  What  a  strength 
prayer  has  been  to  the  grandest  souls  of  the  ages  !  Never 
was  truer,  finer  truth  written  than  those  magnificent  words  of 
Isaiah :  "  Even  the  youths  shall  faint  and  be  weary,  and 
the  young  men  shall  utterly  fall :  but  they  that  wait  upon 
the  Lord  shall  renew  their  strength ;  they  shall  mount  up 
with  wings  as  eagles ;  they  shall  run,  and  not  be  weary ;  they 
shall  walk,  and  not  faint !  " 

Take  Jesus  in  his  hour  of  agony,  take  Savonarola  with  his 
struggle,  take  Huss,  Wyclif,  Luther, —  take  all  the  grand 
souls  of  the  ages  when  they  have  simply  stood  with  the  feel- 
ing, One  with  God  is  a  majority,  and  ready  to  face  the 
world,  if  need  be,  in  the  conviction  that  they  spoke  for  and 
represented  the  truth.  The  times  of  which  Lowell  speaks :  — 


160  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

"  Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold,  Wrong  forever  on  the  throne, — 
Yet  that  scaffold  sways  the  future,  and,  behind  the  dim  unknown, 
Standeth  God  within  the  shadow,  keeping  watch  above  his  own." 

This  sense  that  God  is  for  the  truth  and  right,  and,  if  you 
are  standing  for  the  truth  and  right,  the  Almighty  Power  is 
backing  you  up,  the  ground  you  stand  on  impregnable,  be- 
cause of  that  position.  You  do  not  expect  God  to  work 
miracles,  you  do  not  expect  him  to  do  anything ;  but  simply 
the  sense  that  you  are  in  his  presence,  that  you  are  on  his 
side,  re-enforces  you  more  than  a  thousand  men  could  re-en- 
force an  army  in  the  time  of  its  need.  This  is  the  great 
sense  of  surety  that  the  poet  Clough  had  in  mind,  when  he 
wrote  those  wonderfully  fine  words  :  — 

"  It  fortifies  my  soul  to  know 
That,  though  I  perish,  Truth  is  so; 
That  howsoe'er  I  stray  or  range, 
Whate'er  I  do,  thou  dost  not  change. 
I  steadier  step  when  I  recall 
That,  if  I  slip,  thou  dost  not  fall." 

Here  is  the  confidence,  the  strength,  that  comes  from 
prayer,  from  communion  with  God,  from  the  sense  of  being 
in  his  presence,  from  a  feeling  of  fellowship  with  the  Divine. 

The  truest  and  finest,  the  sweetest  prayer  must  come  out 
of  the  loving,  the  sympathetic,  the  tender  soul.  No  selfish 
prayer  can  expect  to  enter  into  the  heart  of  God.  You  will 
note  in  the  words  that  Jesus  teaches  his  disciples,  it  is  not 
"  My"  Father,  it  is  "  Our  "  Father.  And,  if  we  wish  to  pray 
in  the  divine  spirit,  we  shall  broaden  that  "  Our "  until  it 
includes  not  only  our  family,  our  church,  our  city,  our 
State,  our  nation,  our  humanity,  but  until  it  includes  all 


Prayer,  and  Communion  with  God  161 

life  that  swims  or  walks  or  flies,  feeling  that  it  is  the  one 
life  of  the  Father  that  is  in  us  all.  For,  as  Coleridge  has 
finely  put  it, 

"  He  prayeth  best  who  loveth  best 

All  things,  both  great  and  small ; 
For  the  dear  God  who  loveth  us, 
He  made  and  loveth  all." 


THE   WORSHIP   OF   GOD. 


THERE  are  those  who  in  religious  matters,  as  well  as  in 
all  other  departments  of  life,  are  content  to  walk  unquestion- 
ingly  the  path  which  the  footsteps  of  previous  generations 
have  made  easy  and  familiar.  But  there  are  others  —  and 
these  among  the  more  thoughtful  and  earnest  minds  —  to 
whom  it  is  not  enough  to  utter  earnest  words  concerning  en- 
thusiasm and  devotion,  consecration  and  worship.  These 
spiritual  attitudes  and  exercises  must  first  be  made  to 
appear  reasonable  to  them,  fitting, —  fitting  to  their  concep- 
tion of  God,  fitting  to  their  ideas  of  that  which  is  highest 
and  finest  in  man. 

So  there  are  many  things  that  pass  to-day  as  forms  of 
worship,  many  ideas  connected  with  worship,  which  this 
class  of  minds  cannot  heartily  and  fully  accept.  Some  of 
them  do  not  seem  to  them  fitting,  as  they  look  upward 
towards  God.  They  cannot,  for  example,  believe  that  God 
cares  for  flattery,  cares  to  sit  on  his  throne,  and  be  told  by 
his  creatures  how  great  and  how  wonderful  he  is.  They 
cannot  think  that  he  cares  to  have  presents  brought  to 
him,  gifts  offered  on  his  altar,  as  men  say.  They  cannot 
believe  that  he  really  is  anxious  for  many  of  these  external 
forms  and  ceremonies,  which  seem  to  the  onlooker  to  con- 
stitute the  essential  element  of  much  that  passes  as  popular 
worship. 

And  then,  on  the  other  hand,  man  has  grown  into  a  sense 


The   Worship  of  God  163 

of  dignity.  He  has  a  higher  and  loftier  idea  of  his  own 
nature  and  of  what  is  fitting  to  a  man ;  and  he  cannot  any 
longer  heartily  enter  into  the  meaning  of  words  which  speak 
of  him  as  a  worm  of  the  dust,  which  seem  to  him  to  intimate 
that  God  cares  to  have  him  prostrate  himself  in  utter  hu- 
miliation, to  speak  of  himself  always  as  a  miserable  sinner, 
as  one  without  any  good  in  him. 

Many  of  these  things  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  man 
himself  no  longer  constitute  the  real  conviction,  the  real 
feeling  of  the  noblest  hearts ;  and  so  there  are  many  who 
are  troubled  over  this  question  of  worship,  who  are  not 
quite  sure  as  to  how  much  spiritual  significance  it  may  any 
longer  retain,  not  quite  sure  as  to  how  vital  a  part  it  may 
play  in  the  development  of  the  religious  life  of  man. 

We  find  an  adequate  and  perfectly  natural  explanation  of 
some  of  these  phases  of  worship  that  trouble  us  to-day,  as 
we  look  back  and  note  some  of  the  steps  in  the  religious  de- 
velopment of  the  race.  I  shall  not  raise  the  question  as  to 
how  or  where  or  in  what  way  the  act  of  human  worship 
began.  I  will  simply  say  that  one  of  the  first  manifestations 
of  that  which  came  to  be  religious  worship  which  we  are 
able  to  trace  at  the  present  time  is  to  be  found  in  the  burial- 
mounds  of  the  dead.  Men  reverenced  the  memory  of  the 
chief  of  the  tribe  who  had  passed  into  the  invisible.  They 
did  not  believe  that  he  had  ceased  to  exist:  they  rather 
looked  upon  him  as  having  become,  because  invisible,  a 
higher  ruler.  They  thought  of  him  as  still  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  the  tribe,  still  its  guardian,  still  its  avenger,  still 
demanding  of  the  tribe  the  same  reverence  that  it  paid  to 
him  while  he  was  yet  alive ;  and  his  followers  clothed  him 
with  all  the  human  attributes  with  which  they  were  familiar 
during  the  time  he  was  among  them.  He  was  still  hungry, 


164  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

he  was  still  thirsty,  he  still  wanted  his  old-time  weapons, — 
all  those  things  he  was  familiar  with  during  his  earthly 
career.  And  so  they  brought  food,  and  laid  it  on  the 
burial-mound  above  his  body ;  and  they  poured  out  their 
libations  of  drink  to  quench  his  spiritual  thirst. 

These  were  very  real  beliefs  on  the  part  of  man  univer- 
sally during  a  certain  stage  of  his  mental,  his  moral,  his 
spiritual  growth.  It  was  a  very  natural  step  beyond  this  to 
the  origin  of  sacrifices.  All  sacrifice  began  right  here.  It 
was  a  religious  meal,  in  which  God  and  his  worshippers 
equally  shared.  Some  animal,  supposed  to  partake  of  a  life 
similar  to  that  which  distinguished  the  god  and  the  wor- 
shipper, too,  is  sacrificed.  It  is  cooked,  and  the  worshippers 
partake  of  the  meal ;  and  they  fully  believe  that  the  god 
joins  in  it  also.  And  then  the  drink  they  partake  of,  and 
pour  out  their  libation  for  the  invisible  spirit. 

So  the  first  sacrifice  was  a  meal  eaten  together ;  and  just 
as,  for  example,  to-day  you  see  a  remnant  of  this  idea  when 
a  man  eats  with  an  Arab,  although  the  Arab  may  discover 
five  minutes  after  that  it  was  his  bitterest  foe,  he  finds  him- 
self at  least  during  a  little  time  bound  to  amity  and  peace 
by  the  fact  that  they  have  shared  this  sacred  meal  together, 
so  in  the  act  of  sacrifice  it  was  believed  that  the  worshipper 
consecrated  himself  in  loyalty  to  his  God,  and  that  the  God 
consecrated  himself  in  faithfulness  to  his  worshippers  as 
their  guardian  and  protector.  Here  is  given  the  central 
significance  of  sacrifices  that  have  made  so  large  a  part  of 
the  religious  ceremonial  of  the  world. 

These  are  not  peculiar  to  what  we  call  pagan  people. 
Do  you  remember  the  story  of  how,  after  the  flood,  Noah 
offers  a  sacrifice,  and  God  up  in  heaven  is  represented  as 
smelling  the  flavor  of  the  burning  meat  and  as  rejoicing  in 


The    Worship  of  God  165 

it,  accepting  the  offering,  and  pledging  himself  to  guard  and 
care  for  his  worshippers?  Do  you  remember,  also,  that 
story  of  Jacob, —  how,  when  he  is  on  his  journey,  he  falls 
asleep,  and  has  his  wonderful  dream,  and  sees  the  ladder 
starting  at  his  feet  and  ending  at  the  throne  of  God,  up  and 
down  which  the  angels  are  passing  ?  When  he  wakes  in 
the  morning,  he  says,  "  Surely,  this  is  holy  ground " ;  and 
he  takes  the  stone  on  which  he  slept,  and  sets  it  up  as  an 
altar,  and  pours  out  the  sacred  oil  as  an  offering  to  his  God. 

All  the  way  through  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  history  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  you  trace  these  same  ideas  that  you  find 
in  the  life  of  almost  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  It 
was  only  a  step  beyond  this  to  the  idea  of  presenting  gifts 
to  God,  no  matter  what  the  nature  of  that  gift  might  be. 
And,  as  men  came  to  make  him  these  sacred  offerings,  they 
came  also  to  believe  —  and  in  the  most  natural  way  in  the 
world  —  that,  the  more  costly  the  gift,  the  more  likely  it  was 
to  be  accepted  on  the  part  of  its  sublime  recipient. 

So  human  sacrifices  arose;  for  there  could  be  no  more 
sacred  gift  than  for  a  man  to  offer  his  own  child  or  his  own 
wife  to  God.  The  gods  were  looked  upon  as  sometimes 
demanding  these  tremendous  sacrifices  as  the  conditions  of 
their  mercy  or  their  care.  I  refer  you  for  illustration  to  one 
of  the  most  striking  and  touching  of  Tennyson's  poems.  I 
think  it  is  entitled  "  The  Victim."  There  had  been  famine 
in  the  land,  and  the  priests  have  announced  that  they  have 
learned  that  the  gods  demand  as  an  offering  that  which  is 
most  sacred  and  most  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  king ;  and  the 
question  is  as  to  whether  it  is  his  son,  his  boy,  or  his  wife. 
They  think  it  must  be  the  boy,  because  he  was  the  one  that 
would  continue  the  kingly  line;  but  the  wife  detects  the 
gladness  of  her  husband  when  he  sees  that  the  boy  is  to  be 


1 66  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

selected,  and  knows  by  that  sense  of  relief  that  passes  over 
his  face  that  the  priests  have  made  a  mistake,  and  that  she 
herself  is  to  be  the  victim.  And  so,  in  her  love  for  him  and 
for  the  people,  she  rushes  upon  the  sacrificial  knife. 

All  these  ideas,  you  see,  are  perfectly  natural  in  certain 
stages  of  human  development,  logically  reasoned  out  in  view 
of  their  thought  of  the  gods  and  of  their  relations  to  them 
and  of  what  these  gods  must  desire  at  their  hands.  It  is  not 
only  among  the  very  early  beliefs  that  you  find  these  ideas 
controlling  the  thought  and  action  of  men.  Study  the  an- 
cient classical  times  as  they  are  reflected  in  the  Iliad,  in 
the  Odyssey,  or  in  Virgil's  ^Eneid,  and  you  will  find 
that  the  gods  were  very  human  in  all  their  feelings,  their 
thoughts,  their  passions.  As,  in  the  Old  Testament,  Yah- 
we-h  is  reported  to  have  been  a  jealous  God,  not  willing 
that  respect  should  be  paid  to  anybody  but  himself,  so  you 
find  the  old  Greek  and  Roman  deities  very  jealous  as  to 
what  were  regarded  as  their  rights,  as  to  what  the  people 
must  pay  to  them ;  and,  if  they  are  angry,  they  can  be  ap- 
peased if  an  offering  rare  and  costly  enough  be  brought  by 
the  worshipper.  You  can  buy  their  favor,  you  can  ward  off 
their  anger,  if  only  you  can  offer  them  something  which  is 
precious  enough  so  that  they  are  ready  to  accept  it  at  the 
worshipper's  hands. 

These  are  not  merely  Old  Testament  ideas,  nor  only 
pagan  ideas.  Some  years  ago,  when  I  was  in  Rome,  I 
visited  among  others  one  of  the  many  churches  dedicated 
to  Mary  under  one  name  or  another ;  and  there  was 
a  statue  of  the  Virgin  by  the  altar,  and  it  impressed  me  very 
much  to  see  that  it  was  loaded  down  with  gifts.  Every 
place  on  the  statue  itself  to  which  anything  could  be  at- 
tached, anything  on  the  altar  around  it,  was  weighted  down 


The    Worship  of  God  167 

with  gold  chains,  with  jewels,  with  precious  gifts  of  every 
kind.  These  had  been  brought  as  thank-offerings,  expres- 
sions of  worship,  or  pledges  connected  with  a  petition, — 
because  I  have  brought  thee  this  gift,  have  mercy,  do  this 
for  me  which  I  need. 

So  these  old  ideas  are  vital  still,  and  live  on  in  the 
modern  world.  And  yet  modern  and  magnificent  are  those 
utterances  of  the  old  Hebrew  prophet,  who  had  so  com- 
pletely outgrown  the  common  customs  even  of  his  time, 
when  he  represents  God  as  saying  that  he  is  weary  of  all 
these  external  offerings.  He  says :  I  do  not  want  the  cat- 
tle brought  to  my  temples.  Those  that  wander  on  a  thou- 
sand hills  are  already  mine.  If  I  were  hungry,  I  would  not 
ask  thee.  He  does  not  want  the  rivers  of  oil  poured  out. 
What  does  he  want  ?  The  old  prophet  says,  "  What  doth 
the  Lord  require  of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and 
to  walk  humbly  with  God  ? "  And  some  of  the  later  writers 
caught  a  glimpse  of  the  same  spiritual  truth  when  they 
said,  Not  burnt-offerings,  not  calves  of  a  year  old;  when 
they  cry  out,  Shall  I  bring  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the 
sin  of  my  soul  ?  No,  it  is  a  broken  and  contrite  heart,  a 
heart  sorry  for  its  sin,  a  heart  consecrating  itself  to  right- 
eousness and  truth,  this  inner,  spiritual  worship. 

The  prophets,  you  see,  were  climbing  up  to  that  magnifi- 
cent ideal  so  finely  set  up  by  Jesus  as  reported  in  the  Gos- 
pel from  which  I  read  our  lesson  this  morning.  They  had 
not  only  believed  that  God  was  to  be  worshipped  after  these 
external  fashions,  but  that  there  was  some  special  place,  not 
only  where  it  was  easier  to  think  of  him,  but  where  he  de- 
manded the  offering  should  be  brought.  He  said  to  the 
woman  at  the  well :  You  think  it  is  Mount  Gerizim  where 
the  people  ought  to  worship,  and  the  Jews  think  it  is  Mount 


1 68  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Moriah ;  but  I  say  unto  you  that  neither  in  this  mountain 
nor  yet  at  Jerusalem  shall  men  worship  the  Father.  God  is 
spirit,  the  universal  spirit,  every  place  a  temple,  every 
spot  hallowed,  if  only  those  that  worship  him  do  so  in  spirit 
and  in  truth. 

You  see,  then,  how  up  these  stairways  of  gradual  ap- 
proach the  human  race,  in  the  person  of  its  highest  and 
finest  representatives,  has  climbed,  how  near  it  has  come 
to  the  spiritual  ideal  of  God  and  the  spiritual  thought  of 
that  which  he  requires  at  our  hands. 

Is  worship,  then,  so  far  as  external  form  is  concerned, 
to  pass  away  ?  By  no  manner  of  means,  as  I  think.  As 
you  analyze  any  one  of  these  old  primitive  acts  of  worship, 
no  matter  how  crude,  no  matter  how  cruel,  how  bloody,  how 
repulsive  it  may  be  to-day  from  the  outlook  of  our  higher 
civilization,  you  will  note  that  it  has  in  it  an  element  which, 
I  believe,  is  permanent,  and  can  never  be  outgrown.  What- 
ever else  there  is,  there  is  always  the  sense  of  a  Presence, 
—  invisible,  mighty,  high,  and,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
worshipper,  holy  and  set  apart.  There  is  always  the  feeling 
of  being  in  the  shadow  of  the  high  and  lofty  One  who  in- 
habiteth  eternity.  There  is  always  the  sense  of  uplooking, 
of  worship,  in  the  higher  sense  of  that  term.  Always,  at  any 
rate,  the  germ  of  these ;  and  this,  it  seems  to  me,  we  may 
be  sure  and  certain,  however  it  may  clothe  itself  in  the 
future,  shall  never  pass  away. 

I  wish  now,  if  there  are  any  who  think  it  is  not  befitting 
the  greatness,  the  nobleness  of  man  that  he  should  bow  him- 
self in  the  presence  of  the  highest,  humiliate  himself,  if  you 
choose  to  use  that  term,  in  acts  of  worship, —  I  wish  now, 
I  say,  to  consider  worship  under  two  or  three  aspects,  and 
see  what  it  means.  And,  in  the  first  place,  I  ask  you  to  note 


The   Worship  of  God  169 

that  the  ability  to  worship  is  always  the  measure  of  the  rank 
of  a  being,  it  is  the  test  and  the  standard  of  greatness. 

As  you  look  over  the  animal  world,  which  one  of  them  are 
we  accustomed  to  think  of  as  coming  the  nearest  to  man  ? 
What  one  do  we  love  to  have  most  with  us,  to  associate 
most  with  our  joys,  with  the  peace  of  our  homes  ?  Is  it  not 
the  dog?  And  as  you  examine  the  dog,  study  carefully  his 
nature  and  characteristics,  do  you  not  note  that  there  is  in 
his  nature  a  hint,  a  suggestion,  of  that  which  is  the  root  of 
all  worship  ?  The  dog  is  the  one  animal  with  which  man  is 
accustomed  familiarly  to  associate  himself,  who  looks  up 
with  an  incipient  reverence,  love,  almost  worship,  to  his 
master.  And  it  is  this  quality  in  the  dog  that  enables  him 
to  look  up,  and,  however  dimly,  feel  the  life  of  some  one 
that  is  above  him,  that  lifts  him  into  our  society,  and  makes 
us  feel  this  tenderness  of  heart-kinship  with  that  which  is 
finest  in  his  nature. 

And  man  is  man  simply  because  he  is  able  to  look  above 
himself.  The  old  Greeks  had  an  anticipation  of  that  idea 
when  they  called  man  anthropos ;  for  the  meaning  of  the 
word  is  the  upward-looker.  As  in  imagination  you  go  back 
and  down  to  the  time  when  man  first  appeared,  developed 
from  the  lower  life  which  preceded  him,  the  first  thing  you 
can  think  about  him  as  human  is  the  opening  of  his  eyes  in 
wonder,  the  lifting  of  his  face  in  curiosity  and  question,  and 
the  birth  of  adoration  in  his  soul.  This  is  that  which  made 
him  man. 

You  go  and  study  the  lowest  type  of  barbaric  life  to-day ; 
and  you  will  find  that  the  barbarian  has  very  little  curiosity 
as  compared  with  the  civilized  man.  You  will  find  that  it  is 
very  difficult  to  astonish  him  with  anything.  He  does  not 
wonder.  He  takes  everything  for  granted.  He  does  not 


170  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

see  clearly  and  deeply  enough  to  appreciate  the  marvel. 
Let  me  illustrate  from  a  specimen  of  barbaric  life  itself. 
A  few  years  ago  the  chief  of  an  Indian  tribe  was  brought 
from  the  plains  of  the  West  to  visit  Washington.  The  idea 
was  to  impress  him  as  much  as  possible  with  the  idea  of  our 
civilization,  so  that  he  might  report  it  to  his  people  when  he 
went  home.  After  they  had  crossed  the  Mississippi  on  their 
way  to  the  West,  the  gentleman  in  whose  care  he  was  travel- 
ling asked  the  chief  what  the  one  thing  which  he  had  seen 
during  his  trip  was  which  had  impressed  him  the  most ;  and 
he  said  at  once  the  St.  Louis  bridge.  But  his  companion 
said,  Are  you  not  astonished  at  the  Capitol  of  Washington  ? 
"Yes,"  he  said,  "but  my  people  can  pile  stones  on  top  of 
each  other;  but  they  cannot  make  a  cobweb  of  steel  hang 
in  the  air." 

You  see  how  that  perception  lifted  him  above  the  aver- 
age level  of  his  people?  He  was  showing  his  capacity 
for  higher  and  nobler  civilization.  It  is  just  this  ability  in 
the  man  to  wonder,  to  see  something  to  wonder  at,  to  wor- 
ship, to  admire,  which  lifts  him  one  grade  higher  than  that 
of  the  average  level  of  his  tribe.  So  that  which  makes 
man  a  man  is  the  capacity  in  him  to  admire.  All  admira- 
tion is  the  essence,  the  root,  of  worship.  And,  the  more 
things  a  man  admires,  the  greater  and  nobler  type  of  man  he 
is  seen  to  be.  If  he  can  admire  music,  if  he  can  admire 
painting,  if  he  can  admire  sculpture,  if  he  can  admire  poetry, 
if  he  can  admire  literature  of  every  kind,  if  he  can  admire 
grand  architecture,  the  beautiful  monuments  of  the  world, 
we  say,  Here  is  a  large,  all-round  type  of  man.  We  estimate 
his  dignity,  his  greatness,  by  the  capacity  that  he  shows  for 
worship  in  its  lower  type  ;  for  worship  is  simply  looking  up 
with  admiration. 


The   Worship  of  God  171 

There  is  another  quality  about  this  worship  that  I  wish  to 
speak  of.  It  is  the  power  that  is  capable  of  transforming 
a  man,  making  him  over  into  the  likeness  of  that  which  he 
admires.  You  find  the  man  without  this  capacity,  and  you 
know  it  is  hopeless  to  appeal  to  him,  hopeless  to  set  up 
ideals,  hopeless  to  place  before  him  enticing  examples. 
There  is  nothing  in  him  to  which  these  things  appeal. 
Take  Alexander  the  Great.  It  is  said  he  carried  around 
with  him  a  copy  of  the  Iliad,  and  that  Achilles  was  his 
ideal  of  a  hero.  Do  you  not  see  how  this  admiration  trans- 
formed the  life  of  the  young  king,  and  made  him  after  the 
type  of  that  which  he  admired?  It  does  not  make  any 
difference  what  this  special  admiration  may  be.  Let  a  man 
admire  Beethoven,  and  he  will  cultivate  instinctively  the 
qualities  that  make  the  beauty  and  greatness  of  Beethoven's 
character  and  the  wonders  of  his  career. 

This  ideal  may  be  in  a  book,  it  may  be  embodied  in  fic- 
tion. I  have  liked  always,  either  on  the  walls  of  my  room 
or  on  the  walls  of  my  heart,  to  have  certain  portraits  of  per- 
sons whom  I  have  loved,  who  are  no  longer  living ;  and  they 
are  to  me  constant  stimulus.  They  speak  to  me  by  day, 
and  in  my  dreams  at  night  their  eyes  follow  me,  and  seem 
to  look  into  my  soul ;  and  in  their  presence  I  could  not  do 
a  mean,  an  unmanly  thing.  I  love,  I  reverence,  I  worship 
these  lofty  ideals.  And  the  quality  of  these  characters  filters 
down  through  and  permeates  the  thought  and  the  life. 

You  remember  how  the  other  aspect  of  this  thought  is 
illustrated  by  Shakspere.  He  says, — 

"  My  nature  is  subdued 
To  what  it  works  in,  like  the  dyer's  hand." 

If  that  with  which  you  keep  company,  that  you  admire,  is 


172  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

below  you,  it  degrades ;  if  it  is  above  you,  it  lifts.  In  any 
case  you  are  transformed,  shaped  into  the  likeness  of  that 
which  you  admire. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  this  close  akin  to  that  which  I 
have  just  been  dealing  with.  It  is  only  the  worshipper  who 
has  in  him  any  promise,  any  possibility,  of  growth.  Whether 
it  is  the  individual  or  the  nation,  it  makes  no  difference. 
If  you  find  no  capacity  to  admire  that  which  is  above  and 
beyond  you,  then  there  is  no  hope  of  progress.  Take  the 
young  man  who  thinks  he  has  exhausted  the  possibilities 
of  the  world,  who  has  reached  the  nil  admirari  stage,  who 
prides  himself  on  not  being  surprised,  not  being  over- 
whelmed, not  admiring  anything.  The  careful  outside  ob- 
server knows  that,  instead  of  having  exhausted  the  possibil- 
ities and  greatness  and  wonders  of  the  universe,  he  has 
simply  exhausted  himself. 

The  man  who  knows  how  full  the  world  is  of  that  which 
is  beautiful  and  great  and  true  and  noble  walks  through  the 
universe  with  his  head  bared  and  bowed,  and  feels,  as  did 
Moses  when  standing  in  the  presence  of  the  burning  bush, 
that  he  ought  to  take  off  his  shoes  from  his  feet,  for  the 
place  where  he  is  standing  is  holy  ground.  Wherever 
you  are  standing  in  this  universe,  which  is  full  of  God  from 
star  to  dust  particle,  is  holy  ground ;  and,  if  you  do  not  feel 
it,  if  you  are  not  touched,  if  you  are  not  bowed,  if  you  are 
not  thrilled  with  wonder,  it  is  defect  in  you,  and  not  lack  of 
God. 

If  the  musician  admires  his  great  predecessors  and  strives 
to  emulate  them ;  if  the  painter  in  the  presence  of  the  Sistine 
Madonna  feels  lifted  and  touched,  so  that  he  never  can  be 
content  with  poor  work  again ;  if  the  sculptor  is  ready  to 
bend  his  knees  in  the  presence  of  the  Venus  of  Melos,  as  he 


The   Worship  of  God  173 

sees  her  standing  at  the  end  of  the  long  gallery  in  the 
Louvre  ;  if  the  lover  of  his  kind  admires  John  Howard,  and 
can  never  be  content  unless  he  is  doing  something  for  his 
fellow-men  again ;  if  we  can  be  touched  by  lives  like  Clara 
Barton's,  like  Florence  Nightingale's,  like  Dorothea  Dix's, 
like  the  great  and  consecrated  ones  of  the  earth ;  if  in  any 
department  of  life  we  can  be  lifted,  humbled,  thrilled,  at  the 
same  time  with  the  thought  of  the  greatness  and  glory  and 
beauty  that  are  above  and  beyond  us, —  then  there  is  hope 
of  growth,  then  there  is  life  that  can  come  to  something 
fine  and  noble  in  the  future. 

I  wish,  in  the  light  of  these  illustrations  of  what  worship 
means,  to  note  the  thought  that  a  great  many  men  —  con- 
scientious, earnest,  simple  —  who  have  never  been  ac- 
customed to  think  of  themselves  as  religious,  and  perhaps 
would  deny  it  if  a  friend  suggested  to  them  that  they  had  in 
them  the  possibilities  of  worship, —  that  perhaps  they  are 
worshippers,  even  if  they  know  it  not.  A  great  many  per- 
sons hare  thrown  away  the  common  ideals  of  worship,  and 
perhaps  have  settled  down  to  the  idea  that  they  are  not 
worshippers  at  all,  while  all  the  time  the  substance  and  the 
beauty  and  the  glory  of  worship  are  in  their  daily  lives  and 
always  in  their  hearts.  I  want  to  suggest  two  or  three 
grades  of  worship,  to  show  that  this  worship  climbs ;  and  I 
want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  on  the  lowest  grade  it 
is  worship  of  God  just  the  same  as  on  the  highest, —  that  all 
worship  or  admiration  for  truth,  for  beauty,  for  good,  wher- 
ever, however,  manifested,  is  really  worship  of  God,  whether 
we  think  of  it  or  call  it  by  that  name  or  not,  because  they 
all  are  manifestations  of  God. 

Take  the  man  who  is  touched  and  lifted  by  natural  beauty, 
the  sense  of  natural  power ;  the  man  who  loves  the  woods, 


174  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

who  turns  and  stands  to  see  the  glory  of  a  sunset,  who  is 
lifted  by  tides  of  emotion  as  he  hears  the  surf  beat  on  the 
shore,  who  feels  bowed  in  the  presence  of  the  wide  night  sky 
of  stars,  who  is  humbled  at  the  same  time  that  he  is  uplifted 
in  the  presence  of  the  mountains,  who  is  touched  by  all 
natural  scenes  of  beauty  and  peace  and  glory.  Are  not 
these  men  in  their  degree  worshippers  ? 

Take  the  feeling  that  is  expressed  in  those  beautiful  lines 
of  Byron.  We  do  not  think  of  Byron  as  a  religious  nature, 
but  certainly  he  had  in  him  the  heart  of  worship  when  he 
could  write  such  thoughts  as  these  :  — 

"  'Tis  midnight.     On  the  mountains  brown 
The  cold,  round  moon  shines  deeply  down  ; 
Blue  roll  the  waters ;  blue  the  sky 
Seems  like  an  ocean  hung  on  high, 
Bespangled  with  those  isles  of  light, 
So  wildly,  spiritually  bright. 
Whoever  looked  upon  them  shining 
And  turned  to  earth  without  repining, 
Nor  wished  for  wings  to  flee  away 
And  mix  with  their  eternal  ray  ?  " 

And  Wordsworth  says  he  feels  a  Presence  that 

"Disturbs  him  with  the  joy  of  elevated  thought, 
A  sense  sublime  of  something  far  more  deeply  interfused." 

And  so  you  may  run  all  through  the  poets, —  these  simply 
as  hints,  specimens, —  every  one  of  them  worshippers, 
touched  by  the  beauty,  glory,  uplift  of  the  natural  world. 

And  then  pass  to  the  next  stage,  and  come  to  the  worship 
of  the  human,  to  the  admiration  of  the  highest  and  finest 
qualities  that  are  manifested  in  the  lives  of  men  and  women. 
Who  is  there  that  is  not  touched  and  thrilled  by  some  story 


The   Worship  of  God  175 

of  heroic  action,  of  heroic  self-sacrifice,  of  consecration  to 
duty  in  the  face  of  danger  and  death  ?  And  no  matter  what 
this  manifestation  of  human  goodness  may  be,  if  you  can  be 
thrilled  by  it  and  lifted  by  it,  then  you  have  taken  another 
step  up  this  ladder  of  worship  which  leads  you  into  the 
very  presence  chamber  of  the  Divine. 

Let  a  boy  read  the  life  of  Lincoln,  see  his  earnest  thirst 
for  knowledge,  the  sacrifice  he  was  willing  to  pay  for  it,  his 
consecration  to  his  ideals  of  truth,  the  transparent  honesty 
of  the  man,  the  supreme  contempt  with  which  he  could  look 
down  upon  anything  poor  or  mean  or  low,  the  firmness 
and  simplicity  with  which  he  assumes  high  office,  the  faith- 
fulness, the  unassuming  devotion,  that  he  carries  into  the 
fulfilment  of  the  trust.  Take  him  all  the  way  through,  study 
his  character  and  admire,  and  you  are  a  worshipper  of  that 
which  is  divine. 

So  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  the  supreme  soul  of  history  in  its 
consecration  to  the  Father,  its  simple  trust  in  the  divine 
love,  its  superiority  to  fear,  to  question,  to  death.  When  we 
bow  ourselves  in  the  presence  of  the  Nazarene,  we  are  not 
worshipping  another  God.  We  are  worshipping  his  Father 
and  our  Father  as  he  shines  in  the  face  of  Jesus,  as  he  il- 
lumines and  beautifies  his  life,  as  he  makes  glorious  the 
humble  pathways  of  Galilee,  and  so  casts  a  reflected  glory 
over  the  humblest  pathways  any  of  us  may  be  called  upon 
to  tread. 

The  next  step  in  our  ascent  brings  us  to  the  conscious 
worship  of  God  himself.  We  cannot  grasp  the  divine  idea. 
The  finite  cannot  measure  or  outline  the  infinite;  and  so, 
when  we  say  "  God,"  we  mean  only  the  grandest  ideal  that 
we  can  frame,  that  reaches  on  towards,  but  can  never  ade- 
quately express  the  Deity.  And  so  we  worship  this  thought, 


176  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

this  ideal,  growing  as  our  capacity  develops,  advancing  as 
the  race  advances,  and  ever  leading  us  Godward, —  as  when 
we  follow  a  ray  of  light  we  are  travelling  towards  its  source. 
And  the  attitude  of  our  souls  in  the  presence  of  this  which 
is  divine  is  truest  worship.  The  humility  of  it,  the  exalta- 
tion of  it,  is  beautifully  phrased  in  two  or  three  lines  which 
I  wish  to  repeat  to  you  from  Browning's  "  Saul "  :  — 

"  I  but  open  my  eyes,  and  perfection, —  no  more  and  no  less, 
In  the  kind  I  imagined,  full-fronts  me,  and  God  is  seen  God 
In  the  star,  in  the  stone,  in  the  flesh,  in  the  soul  and  the  clod. 
And,  thus  looking  within  and  around  me,  I  ever  renew 
(With  that  stoop  of  the  soul  which  in  bending  upraises  it,  too), 
As  by  each  new  obeisance  in  spirit  I  climb  to  his  feet !  " 

Here  is  the  significance  of  the  thought  I  had  in  mind  at 
the  opening.  We  talk  about  humbling  ourselves.  When 
we  can  bend  with  reverence  in  the  presence  of  that  which  is 
above  us,  the  very  bending  is  exaltation ;  for  it  indicates 
the  capacity  to  appreciate,  to  admire,  to  adore.  Thus  we 
climb  up  into  the  ability  to  worship  God,  the  infinite  Spirit, 
our  Father,  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

Now  to  raise  one  moment  the  question  suggested  near 
the  opening, —  Are  forms  of  worship  to  pass  away  ?  The 
reply  to  this  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear.  Those  forms 
which  sprang  out  of  and  are  fitted  to  only  lower  ideals  of 
worship, —  ideals  which  humanity  outgrows, —  these  must  be 
left  behind,  or  else  they  must  be  transformed,  and  filled  with 
a  new  and  higher  meaning.  But  forms  will  always  remain. 
But  note  one  thing :  they  sometimes  say  that  we  Unitarians 
are  too  cold,  and  do  not  have  form  enough.  You  will  see 
that,  the  higher  men  rise  intellectually,  the  less  there  is 
always  of  outward  expression. 


The   Worship  of  God  177 

For  example,  before  men  were  able  to  speak  with  any 
large  vocabulary,  they  eked  out  their  meaning  by  all  kinds 
of  motions  and  gestures.  But  the  most  highly  cultivated 
men  to-day,  in  their  conversation,  are  the  ones  who  get  the 
least  excited  and  have  the  least  recourse  to  gestures,  be- 
cause they  are  capable  of  expressing  the  highest,  finest,  and 
most  varied  thoughts  by  the  elaborate  power  of  speech 
which  they  have  developed.  And  perhaps  the  highest  and 
finest  worship  of  the  world  will  not  be  that  which  has  the 
most  elaborate  ceremonial  and  ritual ;  but  it  will  have  ade- 
quate and  fitting  ceremonial  and  ritual,  because  it  will  nat- 
urally seek  to  express  in  some  external  way  that  which  it 
feels. 

I  sometimes  wish  —  and  perhaps  you  will  pardon  me  for 
saying  it  here  and  now  —  that  we  Unitarians  were  a  little 
less  afraid  of  adequate  posture  and  gesture  in  our  acts  of 
public  worship.  God  is,  indeed,  everywhere  as  much  as  he 
is  here ;  but  this  is  the  place  we  have  specially  consecrated 
to  thinking  about  him  and  to  going  through  our  stated  forms 
of  worship.  And  if,  when  you  enter  the  house  of  a  friend, 
you  take  off  your  hat,  you  bow  the  head,  it  seems  to  me  it 
would  be  especially  fitting  to  do  it,  when  one  enters 
a  Christian  church.  And,  in  the  attitude  of  prayer,  I  wish 
that  all  might  find  it  in  their  hearts  to  sit  with  bended  brow 
and  closed  eyes  as  in  the  presence  of  the  Supreme,  shutting 
out  the  common,  the  outside  world,  and  trying  to  realize 
what  it  means  to  come  consciously  to  the  feet  of  the  eternal 
One. 

I  love  these  simple,  fitting,  external  manifestations  of  the 
worshipful  spirit ;  and,  if  we  do  not  substitute  them  for  the 
worship,  and  think  we  worship  when  we  bend  the  knee,  this 
appropriate  expression  of  the  spirit,  or  feeling,  it  seems  to 


178  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

me,  ought  to  help  cultivate  the  feeling  and  the  spirit,  and 
make  it  easier  for  us  to  be  conscious  of  the  presence  of  the 
Divine. 

We  are  men,  then,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  only 
as  we  are  worshippers.  And  the  more  worshipful  we  are,  in 
the  high  and  true  sense  of  that  word,  the  nobler  and  higher 
our  manhood,  and  the  grander  the  possibilities  in  us  of 
noble  intellectual,  moral,  spiritual  growth. 

Let  us,  then,  cultivate  the  admiring,  the  wondering,  the 
worshipful  attitude  of  heart  and  mind,  and  recognize  on 
the  lowest  steps  of  this  ladder  that  lifts  to  God,  the  pres- 
ence of  the  same  divine  power  and  beauty  and  glory  as  that 
which  we  see  clearly  on  the  highest,  and  know  that  always, 
when  we  are  worshipping  any  manifestation  of  God,  we  are 
worshipping  Him  who  is  spirit, —  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

When  on  some  strain  of  music 

Our  thoughts  are  wafted  high ; 
When,  touched  with  tender  pity, 

Kind  teardrops  dim  the  eye ; 

When  thrilled  with  scenes  of  grandeur, 

Or  moved  to  deeds  of  love, — 
Do  we  not  give  thee  worship, 

O  God  in  heaven  above  ? 

For  Thou  art  all  life's  beauty, 

And  Thou  art  all  its  good  : 
By  Thy  tides  are  we  lifted 

To  every  lofty  mood. 

Whatever  good  is  in  us, 

Whatever  good  we  see, 
And  every  high  endeavor, 

Are  they  not  all  from  Thee  ? 


The   Worship  of  God  179 

Be  it  the  organ's  pealing, 

Be  it  some  mountain  high, 
Be  it  the  swell  of  ocean 

Or  calm  of  starlit  sky  ; 

Be  it  the  grace  of  childhood 

Or  look  of  human  love, — 
All  love  of  good  is  worship 

That  lifts  to  God  above. 


MORALITY    NATURAL,   NOT 
STATUTORY. 


IT  is  very  common  for  people  to  identify  their  special  type 
of  religion  or  their  theological  opinions  with  religion  itself, 
and  feel  that  those  who  do  not  agree  with  them  are  in  the 
true  sense  not  religious.  Not  only  this.  It  is  perhaps  quite 
as  common  for  them  to  identify  their  particular  type  of  relig- 
ion with  the  fundamental  ideas  of  morality,  and  think  that  the 
people  who  do  not  agree  with  them  are  undermining  the  moral 
stability  of  the  world.  For  example,  those  who  question  the 
absolute  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  looked  upon 
by  the  authorities  of  that  Church  as  the  enemies,  not  only  of 
religion,  but  as  the  enemies  of  society,  the  enemies  of  human- 
ity, as  doing  what  they  can  to  shake  the  very  foundations  of 
the  social  order.  You  will  find  a  great  many  Protestant 
theologians  who  seem  to  hold  the  opinion  that,  if  you  dare 
to  question  the  authenticity  or  authority  of  some  particular 
book  in  the  Bible,  you  are  not  only  an  enemy  of  religion, 
but  you  are  an  enemy  of  morality.  You  are  doing  what  you 
can  to  disturb  the  stability  of  the  world. 

But,  if  we  look  at  the  matter  with  a  little  care,  we  shall 
see  that  we  ought  to  turn  it  quite  around, —  look  at  it  from 
another  point  of  view.  Though  every  Bible,  every  particle 
of  religious  literature,  every  hymn,  every  prayer  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,  were  blotted  out  of  existence  to-day,  religion  would 
not  be  touched.  Religious  books  did  not  create  religion, 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  181 

did  not  make  man  a  religious  being.  It  is  the  religious 
nature  of  man  that  made  the  Bibles,  that  uttered  itself  in 
prayers,  that  created  the  rituals,  that  sung  the  hymns  and 
chanted  the  anthems.  It  is  man,  a  religious  being,  who 
makes  religious  institutions,  who  creates  all  the  external 
aspects  and  appearances  of  the  religious  life.  And  the  same 
is  true  precisely  in  regard  to  moral  precepts.  If  the  Ten 
Commandments  were  blotted  out  of  the  memory  of  man,  if 
every  single  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  should  perish,  if  the 
high  and  fine  moral  precepts  of  Epictetus  and  Marcus 
Aurelius  and  all  the  great  teachers  of  the  pagan  world 
should  cease  to  exist,  if  there  were  not  a  printed  moral  pre- 
cept on  earth,  morality  would  not  be  touched.  It  is  not 
these  that  have  created  morality.  It  is  the  natural  moral 
nature  of  man  that  has  written  all  the  commandments, 
whether  they  have  come  to  us  by  the  hand  of  Moses  or  of 
Gautama  or  Mohammed  or  Confucius  or  Seneca,  or  no  mat- 
ter who  the  medium  may  have  been. 

Man  is  a  moral  being,  naturally,  essentially,  eternally, 
and  this  is  a  moral  universe,  inherently,  necessarily,  eter- 
nally ;  and,  though  all  the  external  expression  of  moral 
thought  and  feeling  should  be  lost,  the  human  race  would 
simply  reproduce  them  again. 

It  is  sometimes  well  for  us  to  get  down  to  the  bed-rock 
in  our  thinking,  and  find  how  natural  and  necessary  the 
great  foundations  are.  The  Hindu  priests  used  to  tell  their 
followers  that  the  earth,  which  was  flat,  rested  on  certain 
pillars,  which  rested  again  on  some  other  foundation  be- 
neath them,  and  so  on  until  thought  was  weary  in  trying  to 
trace  that  upon  which  the  earth  was  supposed  to  find  its 
stability.  And  they  also  told  their  followers  that,  if  they  did 
not  bring  offerings,  if  they  did  not  pay  the  special  respect 


1 82  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

which  was  due  to  the  gods,  if  they  were  not  obedient  to 
their  teachings,  these  pillars  would  give  way,  and  the  earth 
would  be  precipitated  into  the  abyss. 

But  we  have  found,  as  a  result  of  our  modern  study  of 
the  universe,  that  the  earth  needs  no  pillars  on  which  to 
rest ;  but  it  swings  freely  in  its  orbit, —  as  the  old  verse  that 
I  used  to  read  in  my  schoolboy  days  says, — 

"  Hangs  on  nothing  in  the  air," 

part  of  the  universal  system  of  things,  stable  in  its  eternal 
round  and  motion,  kept  and  cared  for  by  the  power  that 
never  sleeps  and  never  is  weary.  So,  by  studying  into  the 
foundations  of  the  moral  nature  of  man,  we  have  discovered 
at  last  that  it  needs  no  artificial  props  or  supports,  but  that 
morality  is  inherent,  natural  and  eternal. 

I  shall  not  raise  the  question,  which  is  rather  curious 
than  practical,  as  to  whether  there  are  any  beginnings  of 
moral  feeling  in  the  animal  world  below  man.  For  our  pur- 
pose this  morning  it  is  enough  to  note  that  the  minute  that 
man  appears  conscience  appears,  and  that  conscience  is  a 
fact  which  springs  out  of  social  relations.  In  other  words, 
when  the  first  man  rose  to  the  ability  to  look  into  the  face 
of  his  fellow  and  think  of  the  other  man  as  another  self,  like 
himself  in  feelings,  in  possibilities  of  pleasure  or  pain, — 
when  this  first  man  was  able  imaginatively  to  put  himself  in 
the  place  of  this  other,  then  morality  as  a  practical  fact  was 
born. 

We  may  imagine,  for  the  purpose  of  illustration,  this  man 
saying :  Here  is  another  being  who  appears  to  be  like  my- 
self. He  is  capable  of  suffering  pain,  as  I  am.  He  does 
not  like  pain  any  better  than  I  do.  Therefore,  I  have  no 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  183 

right  to  make  him  suffer  that  which  I  do  not  wish  to  suffer 
myself.  This  other  man  is  capable  of  pleasure.  He  de- 
sires certain  things,  similar  things  to  those  which  I  desire. 
If  I  do  not  wish  him  to  take  these  things  away  from  me, 
I  have  no  right  to  take  them  away  from  him. 

I  do  not  mean  that  this  was  thought  out  in  this  clear  way, 
but  that,  when  there  was  the  first  dim  perception  of  this 
other  self,  with  similar  feelings,  similar  possibilities,  similar 
pleasures,  similar  pains,  then  there  became  a  conscience, 
because  there  was  a  consciousness  of  this  similarity  of  nat- 
ure. Morality,  then,  is  born  as  a  social  fact. 

To  go  a  little  deeper,  and  in  order  to  trace  the  natural 
and  historical  growth  of  the  moral  ideal,  let  me  say  that 
morality  in  its  deepest  and  truest  sense  is  born  of  the  fact 
of  sex,  because  it  is  right  in  there  that  we  find  the  root  and 
the  germ  of  permanent  social  relations.  And  I  wish  you  to 
note  another  very  significant  fact.  You  hear  people  talking 
about  selfishness  and  unselfishness,  as  though  they  were 
direct  contraries,  mutually  exclusive  of  each  other, —  as 
though,  in  order  to  make  a  selfish  man  unselfish,  you  must 
completely  reverse  his  nature,  so  to  speak.  I  do  not  think 
this  is  true  at  all.  Unselfishness  naturally  and  necessarily 
springs  out  of  selfishness,  and,  in  the  deepest  sense  of  the 
word,  is  not  at  all  contradictory  to  that. 

For  example.  A  man  falls  in  love  with  a  woman.  This, 
on  one  side  of  it,  is  as  selfish  as  anything  you  can  possibly 
conceive.  But  do  you  not  see  by  what  subtle  and  divine 
chemistry  the  selfishness  is  straightway  transformed,  lifted 
up,  glorified,  and  becomes  unselfishness  ?  The  very  love 
that  he  professes  for  her  makes  it  necessary  for  his  own 
happiness  that  she  should  be  happy,  so  that,  in  seeking  for 
his  own  selfish  gratification,  he  is  devoting  himself  unself- 
ishly to  the  happiness  of  somebody  else. 


184  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

And,  when  a  child  is  born,  do  you  not  see,  again,  how  the 
two  selfishnesses,  the  father's  and  the  mother's,  selfishly,  if 
you  please,  brooding  over  and  loving  the  child,  at  once  go 
out  of  themselves,  consecrating  time  and  care  and  thought 
and  love,  and  even  health  or  life  itself,  if  need  be,  for  the 
welfare  of  the  child  ? 

Right  in  there,  then,  out  of  this  fact  of  sex  and  in  the 
becoming  of  the  family,  are  born  love  and  sympathy,  and 
tenderness  and  mutual  care, —  all  those  things  which  are 
the  highest  and  finest  constituent  elements  of  the  noblest 
developments  of  the  moral  nature  of  men. 

Imagination  plays  a  large  part  in  the  development  of 
morality ;  for  you  must  be  able  to  put  yourself  imaginatively 
in  the  place  of  another  before  you  can  feel  for  that  other, 
and  in  that  way  recognize  the  rights  of  that  other  and  be 
ready  to  grant  these  rights  to  that  other.  So  we  find  that 
morality  at  first  is  a  narrow  thing :  it  is  confined  perhaps  to 
the  little  family,  the  father,  the  mother,  the  child,  bound 
together  by  these  ties  of  kinship,  of  love,  of  sympathy,  de- 
voting themselves  to  each  other ;  but  they  may  look  upon 
some  other  family  as  their  natural  enemies,  and  feel  no  ne- 
cessity whatever  to  apply  these  same  principles  of  love  and 
tenderness  and  care  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  little 
circle. 

So  you  find,  as  you  study  the  growth  of  the  moral  nature 
of  man,  that  it  is  confined  at  first  to  the  family,  then  to  the 
patriarchal  family,  then  the  tribe;  but  the  fiction  of  kin- 
ship is  still  kept  up,  and,  while  the  member  of  the  primeval 
tribe  feels  he  has  no  right  to  rob  or  murder  within  the  limits 
of  his  tribe,  he  has  no  compunction  whatever  about  robbing 
or  murdering  or  injuring  the  members  of  some  other  tribe. 
So  the  moral  principle  in  its  practical  working  is  limited  to 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  185 

the  range  of  the  sympathy  of  the  tribe,  which  does  not  go 
beyond  the  tribal  limits.  We  see  how  that  principle  works 
still  in  the  world,  from  the  beginning  clear  up  to  the  highest 
reaches  which  we  have  as  yet  attained. 

Take  the  next  step,  and  find  a  city  like  ancient  Athens. 
Still,  perhaps,  the  fiction  of  kinship  is  maintained.  All  the 
citizens  of  Athens  are  regarded  as  members  of  the  same 
great  tribe  or  family.  But  even  in  the  time  of  Plato,  whom 
we  are  accustomed  to  look  upon  as  one  of  the  great 
teachers  of  the  world,  there  was  no  thought  of  any  moral 
obligation  to  anybody  who  lived  in  Sparta,  lived  in  any 
other  city  of  Greece,  and  less  was  there  any  thought  of 
moral  obligation  as  touching  or  taking  in  the  outside  bar- 
barian. So  when  the  city  grew  into  a  nation,  and  we  came 
to  a  point  where  the  world  substantially  stands  to-day,  do 
you  not  see  that  practically  the  same  principle  holds, — 
that,  while  we  recognize  in  some  abstract  sort  of  fashion  that 
we  ought  to  do  justice  and  be  kind  to  people  beyond  our 
own  limits,  yet  all  our  political  economy,  all  our  national 
ideas,  are  accustomed  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  we  must 
be  just  and  righteous  to  our  own  people,  but  that  aggres- 
sion, injustice  of  almost  any  kind,  is  venial  in  our  treatment 
of  the  inhabitants  of  another  country  ?  And  it  may  even 
flame  up  into  the  fire  of  a  wordy  patriotism  in  certain  con- 
ditions;  and  love  of  country  may  mean  hatred  and  injustice 
towards  the  inhabitants  of  another  country,  or  particularly 
towards  the  people  of  another  race. 

Let  me  give  you  a  practical  illustration  of  it.  What  are 
the  relations  in  which  we  stand  to-day  towards  Spain  ?  I 
have  unbounded  admiration  for  the  patience,  on  the  whole, 
for  the  justice,  the  sense  of  right,  which  characterize  the 
American  people.  I  doubt  if  there  is  another  nation  on  the 


1 86  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

face  of  the  earth  to-day  that  would  have  gone  through  the 
last  two  or  three  years  of  our  experience,  and  maintained 
such  an  attitude  of  impartiality,  of  faithfulness,  of  justice,  of 
right.  And  yet,  if  we  examine  ourselves,  we  shall  find  that 
it  is  immensely  difficult  for  us  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place 
of  a  Spaniard,  to  look  at  the  Cuban  question  from  his  point 
of  view,  to  try  to  be  fair,  to  be  just  to  him.  It  is  im- 
mensely difficult,  I  say,  for  us  to  look  at  one  of  these  inter- 
national questions  from  the  point  of  view  of  another  race, 
cherishing  other  religious  and  social  ideas,  having  another 
style  of  government. 

And  there  is  another  illustration  of  it  that  has  recently 
occurred  here  in  our  country,  which  is  sadder  still  to  me. 
Only  a  little  while  ago  a  postmaster  in  the  South  was  shot 
by  a  mob.  The  mob  surrounds  his  house,  murders  him  and 
his  child,  wounds  other  members  of  the  family,  burns  down 
his  home ;  and  why  ?  Under  no  impulse  whatever  except 
that  of  pure  and  simple  race  prejudice,  the  utter  inability  of 
a  white  man  to  put  himself  in  the  position  of  a  black  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  recognize,  plead  for,  or  defend  his  inherent 
rights  as  a  man. 

I  am  not  casting  any  aspersion  on  the  South  in  what  I  am 
saying, —  none  whatever.  Were  the  conditions  reversed, 
perhaps  we  should  be  no  better.  It  is  not  a  practical  prob- 
lem with  us.  If  there  were  two  or  three  times  as  many  col- 
ored men  in  the  State  of  New  York  as  there  are  white  men, 
then  we  might  understand  the  question.  Let  us  not  men- 
tally cast  any  stones  at  the  people  across  the  line.  I  point 
it  out  simply  as  illustrating  the  difficulty  that  we  have  in 
recognizing  the  rights,  the  moral  rights,  of  people  beyond 
the  limits  of  that  sympathy  to  which  we  have  been  accus- 
tomed and  for  a  long  period  trained. 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  187 

I  believe  the  day  will  come  when  we  shall  be  as  jealous 
of  the  right  of  a  man  as  we  are  now  of  the  right  of  an. 
American.  We  are  not  yet.  There  have  been  foregleams  and 
prophecies  of  it  in  the  past.  Long  ago  a  Latin  writer  said, 
"  I  am  a  man,  and  whatever  is  human  is  not  foreign  to  me.'" 
But  think  what  a  lone  and  isolated  utterance  that  has  been 
for  hundreds  of  years.  Jesus  taught  us  to  pray, —  not  my 
Father,  but  our  Father, —  and  we  do  pray  it  every  day  in  the 
year ;  but  how  many  are  the  people  in  any  of  the  churches 
that  dream  of  living  it  ?  A  hundred  years  ago  that  heretic, 
who  is  still  looked  upon  as  the  bugaboo  of  all  that  is  fine 
and  good,  Thomas  Paine,  wrote,  "  The  world  is  my  country, 
and  to  do  good  is  my  religion,"  — a  sentence  so  fine  that  it 
has  been  carved  on  the  base  of  the  statue  of  William  Lloyd 
Garrison  on  Commonwealth  Avenue  in  Boston,  as  being  a 
fitting  symbol  of  his  own  philanthropic  life. 

How  many  of  us  have  risen  to  the  idea  of  making  these 
grand  sentiments  the  ruling  principles  of  our  lives  ?  But 
along  the  lines  of  moral  growth  it  is  to  come.  The  day  will 
be  when,  as  I  said,  we  shall  feel  as  keenly  whatever  touches 
the  right  of  any  man  as  to-day  we  feel  that  which  touches 
the  right  of  one  of  our  own  people ;  and  the  moral  growth 
of  the  world  will  reach  beyond  that.  I  love  to  dream  of  a 
day  when  men  will  no  longer  forget  the  inherent  rights  of 
any  inhabitant  of  the  air  or  of  the  waters  or  of  the  woods 
or  any  of  the  domesticated  animals  that  we  have  come  to  as- 
sociate with  our  lives. 

We  feel  towards  them  to-day  as  in  the  old  days  a  man  felt 
towards  another  man  who  was  his  slave, —  that  he  had  a 
right  to  abuse,  to  maltreat,  even  to  kill,  if  he  pleased.  We 
have  not  yet  become  civilized  enough,  so  that  we  feel  it  in- 
cumbent upon  us  to  recognize  the  fact  that  animals  can 


1 88  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

suffer  pain,  that  animals  can  enjoy  the  air  or  the  sunshine, 
and  that  they  have  a  right  to  each  when  they  do  not  tres- 
pass upon  the  larger  rights  of  humanity.  I  was  something 
•of  a  boy  when  it  first  came  over  me  that  it  was  not  as 
•amusing  to  animals  to  be  shot  and  killed  as  it  was  to  me  to 
; shoot  and  kill  them.  From  the  time  I  was  able  to  lift  a  gun 
I  had  always  carried  one ;  but  I  soon  learned  that  for  me 
"there  was  no  pleasure  in  taking  needlessly  the  life  of  any- 
'-thing  that  lived.  We  are  only  partially  civilized  as  yet  in 
"•the  treatment  of  our  domesticated  animals.  How  many 
people  think  of  the  torture  of  the  curb  bit,  of  the  check,  of 
neglect  in  the  case  of  cold,  of  thirst,  of  hunger?  How 
many  people,  I  say, —  civilized  and  in  our  best  society, — 
are  careful  yet  as  to  the  comfort,  the  rights,  of  those  that 
serve  them  in  these  humble  capacities  ? 

The  time  will  come  when  our  moral  sympathetic  sense 
shall  widen  its  boundaries  even  farther  yet,  and  shall  take 
in  the  trees  and  the  shrubs,  the  waters,  the  hills, —  all  the 
natural  and  beautiful  features  of  the  world.  I  believe  that  by 
and  by  it  will  be  regarded  as  immoral,  as  unmanly,  to  deface, 
to  mar,  that  which  God  has  made  so  glorious  and  so  beautiful. 
As  soon  as  man  develops,  then,  his  power  of  sympathy, 
so  that  it  can  take  the  world  in  its  arms,  so  soon  he  will 
have  grown  to  the  stature  of  the  Divine  in  the  unfolding  of 
his  moral  nature. 

I  wish  now  to  raise  the  question,  for  a  moment,  as  to 
what  is  to  be  our  guide  in  regard  to  moral  facts  and  moral 
actions.  I  was  trained,  and  perhaps  most  of  you  were,  to 
believe  that  I  was  unquestioningly  to  follow  my  conscience, 
that  whatever  conscience  told  me  to  do  was  necessarily 
right.  The  conscience  has  been  spoken  of  as  though  it  were 
a  sort  of  little  deity  set  to  rule  man's  nature, —  this  little 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  189 

kingdom  of  thought  and  feeling  and  action.  But  conscience 
is  nothing  of  the  kind.  Half  of  the  consciences  of  the  world 
to-day  are  all  wrong. 

Let  me  hint  by  way  of  illustration  what  I  mean :  Calvin 
was  just  as  conscientious  in  burning  Servetus  as  Servetus 
was  in  pursuing  that  course  of  action  which  led  him  to  the 
stake.  One  of  them  was  wrong  in  following  his  conscience, 
then.  You  take  it  to-day :  some  people  will  tell  you  there 
is  a  certain  day  in  the  week  that  you  must  observe  as 
sacred.  Your  conscience  tells  you  there  is  another  day  in 
the  week  that  you  must  observe  as  sacred.  Can  both  be 
right?  Many  of  the  greatest  tragedies  of  the  world  have 
come  about  through  these  controversies  and  confusions  of 
conscience.  The  Quaker  in  old  Boston  went  at  the  cart's 
tail,  in  disgrace,  because  he  followed  his  conscience ;  and 
the  Puritan  put  him  there  because  he  followed  his  con- 
science. Were  both  of  them  right?  The  inquisitor  in 
Spain  put  to  death  hundreds  and  thousands  of  people  con- 
scientiously ;  and  the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  people 
conscientiously  went  to  their  deaths. 

What  is  conscience,  then?  Conscience  is  not  a  moral 
guide.  It  is  simply  that  monitor  within  that  reiterates  to 
us  forever  and  forever  and  forever,  Do  right.  But  con- 
science does  not  tell  us  what  is  right.  We  must  decide 
those  questions  as  a  matter  of  calm  study  and  judgment  in 
the  light  of  human  experience.  It  is  the  judgment  that 
should  tell  us  whether  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong.  And  how 
shall  we  know  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong  ?  Simply  by  the 
consequences.  That  which  helps,  that  which  lifts  man  up, 
that  which  adds  to  the  happiness  and  the  well-being  of  the 
world,  as  the  result  of  human  experience,  is  right.  That 
which  hurts,  that  which  injures  men  and  women,  that  which 


190  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

takes  away  from  their  welfare  and  happiness,  that  is  wrong. 
All  these  things,  as  we  shall  see  before  I  get  through,  are 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  things, —  not  created  by  statute, 
not  the  result  of  the  moral  teaching  of  anybody. 

This  leads  me  to  extend  this  idea  a  little  farther,  and  to 
raise  the  question  as  to  what  is  the  standard  by  which  you 
are  to  judge  moral  action.  If  you  will  think  it  out  with  a 
little  care,  you  will  find  that  the  standard  of  all  moral  action 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  one  word  "  life."  Life,  first,  as 
continuance ;  second,  to  use  a  philosophical  term,  con- 
tent,—  that  which  it  includes.  Life, —  this  is  the  standard 
of  right  and  wrong. 

To  illustrate,  take  me  physically, —  leave  out  of  account 
all  the  rest  of  my  nature  now  for  a  moment,  and  consider  me 
as  an  animal.  From  the  point  of  view  of  my  body,  that 
which  conduces  to  length  of  life,  to  fulness,  to  completion, 
to  enjoyment  of  life,  is  right, —  the  only  right,  from  this 
physical  point  of  view.  That  which  threatens  my  life,  that 
which  takes  away  my  sum  of  strength,  injures  my  health, 
takes  away  from  my  possibility  of  enjoyment, —  that,  from 
a  physical  point  of  view,  is  wrong;  and  there  can  be  no 
other  right  or  wrong  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  body. 

But  I  am  not  simply  body.  So  this  principle  must  be 
modified.  Come  up  to  the  fact  that  I  am  an  intellectual 
being.  In  order  to  develop  myself  intellectually,  I  may 
have  to  forego  things  that  would  be  pleasant  on  the  bodily 
plane.  I  sacrifice  the  lower  for  the  higher ;  and  that  which 
would  be  right  on  the  physical  plane  becomes  relatively 
wrong  now,  because  it  interferes  with  something  that  is 
higher  and  more  important. 

Rise  one  step  to  man  as  an  affectional  being.  If  you  wish 
to  develop  him  to  the  finest  and  highest  here,  you  may  not 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  191 

only  be  obliged  under  certain  conditions  to  sacrifice  the 
body,  but  you  may  be  obliged  to  sacrifice  his  intellectual 
development.  In  order  that  he  may  be  the  best  up  here,  he 
must  put  the  others  sometimes,  relatively,  under  his  feet. 
So,  again,  that  which  would  be  right  on  the  physical  plane 
or  the  intellectual  plane  becomes  relatively  wrong,  if  it  in- 
terferes with  that  which  is  higher  still. 

And  so,  if  you  recognize  man  as  a  spiritual  being,  a  child 
of  God,  then  you  say  it  is  right,  if  need  be,  to  put  all  these 
other  things  under  his  feet,  in  order  that  he  may  attain  the 
highest  and  best  that  he  is  capable  of  here.  But  you  see  it 
is  life  all  the  way, —  it  is  the  physical  life  or  it  is  the  mental 
life  or  it  is  the  affectional  life  or  it  is  the  spiritual  life ;  and 
that  which  is  necessary  for  the  cultivation  and  development 
of  these  different  grades  of  life  becomes  on  those  grades 
right,  and  that  which  threatens  or  injures  one  or  either  of 
these  grades  becomes,  so  far  as  that  grade  is  concerned, 
wrong. 

Life,  then,  continuance,  fulness,  joy,  use, —  this  is  the 
standard  of  right  and  wrong ;  a  standard  which  no  book 
ever  set  up,  which  no  book  can  ever  overthrow ;  a  standard 
which  is  inherent,  natural,  necessary,  a  part  of  the  very 
nature  of  things. 

I  wish  now  for  a  moment  —  I  must  of  course  do  it  briefly 
—  to  consider  the  relation  of  religion  to  this  natural  moral- 
ity. And  perhaps  you  will  hardly  be  ready  —  some  of  you, 
at  any  rate  —  for  the  statement  which  I  propose  to  make, — 
that  sometimes,  in  order  to  be  grandly  moral,  a  man  must 
be  irreligious.  I  mean,  of  course,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  conventional  religion  of  his  time,  he  must  be  ready  to  be 
regarded  as  irreligious.  In  the  earliest  development  of  the 
religious  and  moral  life  of  a  tribe,  very  likely,  the  two  went 


1 92  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

hand  in  hand,  side  by  side;  for  the  dead  chief  now  wor- 
shipped as  god  would  be  looked  upon  as  in  favor  of  those 
customs  or  practices  which  the  tribe  had  come  to  regard  as 
right.  But  religion  —  perhaps  you  will  know  by  this  time, 
if  you  have  thought  of  it  carefully  —  is  the  most  conserva- 
tive thing  in  the  world.  Naturally,  it  is  the  last  thing  that 
people  are  willing  to  change.  This  reluctance  grows  out  of 
their  reverence,  grows  out  of  their  worshipful  nature,  grows 
out  of  their  fear  that  they  may  be  wrong. 

But  now  let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean.  Religion,  stand- 
ing still  in  this  way,  has  become  an  institution,  a  set  of  be- 
liefs, of  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  do  not  change.  The 
moral  experience  of  the  people  goes  right  on ;  and  so  it 
sometimes  comes  to  pass  that  the  moral  ideal  has  outgrown 
the  religious  ideal  of  the  community.  And  now,  as  a  prac- 
tical illustration  to  illume  the  whole  point,  let  us  go  back  to 
ancient  Athens  for  a  moment  at  the  time  of  Socrates.  Here 
we  are  confronted  with  the  curious  fact  that  Socrates,  who 
has  been  regarded  from  that  day  to  this  as  the  most  grandly 
moral  man  of  his  time,  the  one  man  who  taught  the  high- 
est and  noblest  human  ideals,  is  put  to  death  as  an  irrelig- 
ious man.  The  popular  religion  of  the  time  cast  him  out, 
and  put  the  hemlock  to  his  lips  ;  and  at  the  same  time  his 
teaching  in  regard  to  righteousness  and  truth  was  unspeak- 
ably ahead  of  the  popular  religion  of  his  day. 

Let  us  come  to  the  modern  Athens  for  a  moment,  to  the 
time  of  Theodore  Parker  in  Boston.  We  are  confronted 
here,  again,  with  this  strange  fact.  There  was  not  a  church 
in  Boston  that  could  abide  him,  not  even  the  Unitarian 
churches ;  and  in  the  prayer-meetings  of  the  day  they  were 
beseeching  God  to  take  him  out  of  the  world,  because  they 
thought  he  was  such  a  force  for  evil.  And  at  the  same 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  193 

time  Theodore  Parker  stood  for  the  very  highest,  tenderest, 
truest  moral  ideal  of  his  age.  There  was  no  man  walking 
the  earth  at  that  time  who  so  grandly  voiced  the  real  law  of 
God  as  did  Theodore  Parker.  And  yet  he  was  outcast  by 
the  popular  religious  sentiment  of  his  time. 

This,  then,  is  what  I  mean  when  I  say  that  we  ought  to 
be  careful,  and  study  and  think  in  forming  our  religious 
ideals,  and  see  that  we  do  not  identify  our  own  unwilling- 
ness to  think  with  the  eternal  and  changeless  law  of  God. 
This  is  what  I  have  meant  in  some  of  the  strictures  which 
I  have  uttered  during  the  last  year  upon  some  of  the  theo- 
logical creeds  of  the  time.  The  people  have  grown  to  be 
better  than  their  creeds,  but  they  have  not  yet  developed  the 
courage  to  make  those  creeds  utter  the  highest  and  finest 
things  which  they  think  and  feel.  This  is  what  I  have 
meant  when  I  have  said  that  the  character  of  God  as  out- 
lined in  many  of  these  creeds  is  away  behind  and  below  the 
noblest  and  finest  and  sweetest  ideals  of  what  we  regard  as 
fitting  even  to  humanity  to-day. 

Religion,  then,  may  be  ahead  of  the  moral  ideal  or  it  may 
be  behind  it.  The  particular  type  of  religion  I  mean,  of 
course,  which  is  being  held  at  any  particular  time  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  But  the  moral  ideal  of  necessity  goes 
on,  keeping  step  with  the  social  experience  of  the  race. 

I  must  touch  briefly  now  just  one  other  point  of  practical 
importance  that  we  need  to  guard,  in  order  to  be  tender  and 
true  in  our  dealings  with  our  fellow-men.  You  will  find,  if 
you  look  over  the  face  of  society,  that  there  are  two  kinds 
of  morality,  frequently  quite  inconsistent  with  each  other ; 
and  sometimes  the  poorer  of  the  two  kinds  is  held  in  higher 
esteem  than  the  better.  I  mean  there  is  conventional 
morality,  and  there  is  real  morality. 


194  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

As  a  hint  of  illustration :  An  American  woman  goes  to 
Turkey  to-day ;  and  she  is  shocked  by  the  customs  of  the 
women  and  their  style  of  dress.  It  seems  to  her  that  no 
woman  can  possibly  be  moral  who,  although  she  covers  her 
head,  can  appear  on  the  street  with  feet  and  ankles  bare. 
But  this  same  Turkish  woman  is  shocked  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  utterance  to  know  that  in  Europe  and  America 
women  carefully  cover  their  feet,  but  expose  their  faces  and 
their  shoulders.  It  seems  terrible  to  her,  and  she  cannot 
understand  how  a  European  or  American  woman  can  have 
any  regard  for  the  principles  of  delicacy  and  morality. 

Do  you  not  see  how,  in  both  cases  here,  it  is  purely  a 
matter  of  convention  ?  No  real  question  of  morality  is 
touched  in  either  case.  I  speak  of  this  to  prepare  you  to 
note  how  conscience  can  be  as  troubled  over  things  which 
are  purely  conventional  as  it  can  over  things  which  are 
downright  and  real.  Let  me  use  another  illustration,  going 
a  little  deeper  in  the  matter.  Here  is  a  man,  for  example, 
who  is  terribly  shocked  because  his  neighbor  takes  a  drive 
with  his  family  on  Sunday  afternoon.  It  seems  to  him  an 
outrage  on  all  the  principles  of  public  and  social  morality ; 
and  he  is  eager  to  get  up  a  society  to  abolish  such  customs, 
that  seem  to  him  to  threaten  the  prosperity  of  all  that  is  good 
in  the  world.  But  this  same  man,  perhaps,  has  been  trained 
in  a  way  of  conducting  his  business  that,  while  legal,  is  not 
strictly  fair.  This  man  may  be  hard  and  cruel  towards  his 
employees.  He  may  cherish  bitter  hatreds  towards  his 
rivals.  In  his  heart  he  maybe  transgressing  the  law  of  vital 
ethics,  while  fighting  with  all  the  power  of  his  nature  for 
that  which  does  not  touch  any  real  question  of  right  or 
wrong  at  all. 

Or  take  a  woman  who,  while  shocked  at  the  transgression 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  195 

of  some  social  custom  in  which  she  has  been  trained  from 
her  childhood,  or,  for  example,  has  come  to  think  that  a 
certain  way  of  observing  Lent,  on  which  we  have  just 
entered,  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  safety  of  religion 
and  morals  both,  is  yet  quite  willing,  and  without  a  qualm 
of  conscience,  on  the  slightest  hint  of  a  suspicion,  to  tear 
into  tatters  the  character  of  one  of  her  neighbors  or 
friends,  does  not  hesitate  to  slander,  perhaps  is  unjust  or 
cruel  to  the  servants  that  make  the  house  comfortable  and 
beautiful  for  her;  in  other  words,  transgressing  the  real 
laws  of  right  and  wrong,  she  is  shocked  and  troubled  over 
the  transgression  on  the  part  of  others  of  some  purely  con- 
ventional statute,  the  keeping  or  breach  of  which  has  no  real 
bearing  on  the  welfare  of  the  world. 

A  good  many  of  our  social  judgments  are  like  the  case  of 
the  old  lady  —  pardon  me,  if  it  should  make  you  smile,  but 
it  illustrates  the  case  —  who  criticised  with  a  great  deal  of 
severity  a  neighbor  and  friend  who  wore  feathers  on  her 
bonnet.  Somebody  said  to  her,  "  But  the  ribbons  on  your 
bonnet  are  quite  as  expensive  as  the  feathers  that  you  criti- 
cise." "  Yes,"  she  said,  "  I  know  they  are  ;  but  you  have  got 
to  draw  the  line  somewhere,  and  I  choose  to  draw  it  at 
feathers."  So  you  find  a  great  many  people  on  every  hand 
in  society  who  are  choosing  to  draw  these  lines  —  purely 
artificial,  purely  conventional  —  in  regard  to  matters  of 
supposed  right  or  wrong,  while  they  are  not  as  careful  to 
look  down  deeply  into  the  essential  principles  of  that  which 
is  inherently  right  or  wrong. 

And  now  at  the  end  I  wish  to  suggest  what  is  a  theme 
large  enough  for  a  sermon  by  itself,  and  say  that  these  laws 
of  righteousness  are  so  inherent  that  they  are  self-executed; 
and  by  no  possibility  did  any  soul  from  the  beginning  of  the 


196  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

world  ever  escape  the  adequate  result  of  his  wrong-doing. 
The  old  Hebrews,  as  manifested  in  the  Book  of  Job,  the 
Psalms,  and  all  through  the  Old  Testament,  taught  the  idea, 
which  was  common  at  that  time  in  the  world,  that  the  favor 
of  God  was  to  be  judged  by  the  external  prosperity  of  men 
and  women.  The  Old  Testament  promises  long  life  and 
wealth  and  all  sorts  of  good  things  to  the  people  who  do 
right ;  and  I  find  on  every  hand  in  the  modern  world  people 
who  have  inherited  this  way  of  looking  at  things.  I  have 
heard  people  say :  I  have  tried  to  do  right,  and  I  am  not 
prosperous.  I  wonder  why  I  am  treated  so  ?  I  have  heard 
women  say,  I  have  tried  to  be  a  good  mother :  why  is  my 
child  taken  away  from  me  ?  as  though  there  was  any  sort  of 
relation  between  the  two  facts.  I  hear  people  say,  Don't 
talk  to  me  about  the  justice  of  God,  when  here  is  a  man, 
who  has  been  dishonest  all  his  life  long,  who  has  prospered, 
and  become  rich  and  lives  in  a  fine  house,  drives  his  horses, 
and  owns  a  yacht.  As  if  there  was  any  sort  of  connection 
between  the  two,  as  though  a  man  —  merely  because  he 
had  a  fine  house  and  owned  a  yacht — was  escaping  the 
punishment  of  his  unjust  and  selfish  life. 

Remember,  friends,  look  a  little  below  the  surface. 
There  is  no  possibility  of  escape.  I  break  some  law  of  my 
body;  do  I  escape  the  result?  I  break  some  law  of  my 
mind ;  do  I  escape  the  result  ?  I  break  some  law  of  my 
affectional  nature  ;  is  nothing  to  happen  ?  I  break  a  law  of 
my  spiritual  nature  ;  does  nothing  take  place  as  the  result 
of  it  ?  You  might  as  well  say  that  the  law  of  gravity  can  be 
suspended,  that  a  man  can  fling  himself  over  the  edge  of 
a  precipice,  and  come  to  no  harm.  The  precipice  over  the 
edge  of  which  you  fling  yourself  may  be  a  physical  one,  may 
be  a  mental  one,  an  affectional  one,  a  spiritual  one ;  but  the 


Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory  197 

moral  gravity  of  the  universe  is  never  mocked,  and  the  man 
who  breaks  any  of  God's  laws  never  goes  free.  He  may 
discover  that  he  has  broken  it,  be  sorry  for  it,  begin  to  keep 
it  again,  and  recover  himself ;  but  the  consequences  are  sure, 
inevitable,  eternal. 

You  look  at  a  man  who  is  externally  prospering,  and  be- 
cause of  this  you  say  he  is  not  suffering  the  result  of  the 
evil  he  has  done.  Go  back  with  me  to  Homer's  Odyssey  at 
the  time  when  Ulysses  and  his  companions  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  sorceress,  and  his  companions  were  turned  into  swine. 
Would  you  go  and  look  at  these  swine,  and  say  they  are 
not  suffering  anything  ?  See  how  comfortable  they  are.  See 
with  what  gusto  they  eat  the  food  that  is  cast  into  their 
troughs.  See  how  happy  they  are  as  swine.  They  are  not 
suffering  anything  1  Is  it  nothing  to  become  swinish,  merely 
because  you  have  your  beautiful  pen  to  live  in  ?  Is  a  man 
not  suffering  the  result  of  his  moral  wrong  when  he  debases 
and  degrades  and  deteriorates  his  own  nature,  and  becomes 
less  a  man,  because  he  is  surrounded  with  all  that  is  glorious 
and  beautiful  that  art  can  supply  ?  Look  within  whatever 
department  of  nature  where  the  law  has  been  disobeyed,  and 
there  forever  and  forever  read  the  result,  the  inevitable  law, 
—  that  the  soul  that  sinneth,  in  so  far  as  it  sinneth,  it 
shall  die. 


REWARD  AND    PUNISHMENT. 


Two  WEEKS  ago  I  preached  a  sermon,  the  subject  of  which 
was  "Morality  Natural,  not  Statutory."  Judging  by  the 
conversations  which  I  have  had  and  letters  which  I  have 
received,  it  has  aroused  a  good  deal  of  question  and  criti- 
cism in  certain  quarters.  This  must  be  for  one  of  three 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  the  position  which  I  took  may 
not  be  a  tenable  one.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  possible  that 
the  views  expressed,  being  somewhat  new  and  unfamiliar, 
were  not  found  easy  of  apprehension  and  acceptance.  In 
the  third  place,  it  is  possible  that,  in  endeavoring  to  treat  so 
large  a  subject,  I  did  not  analyze  and  illustrate  enough  to 
make  myself  perfectly  clear. 

At  any  rate,  the  matter  seems  to  me  of  such  supreme  im- 
portance as  to  make  it  worth  my  while  this  morning  to  con- 
tinue the  general  subject  by  a  careful  and  earnest  treatment 
of  the  great  question  of  reward  and  punishment  as  applied 
to  feeling,  to  thought,  to  conduct, —  the  whole  of  human  life. 

Let  me  say  here  at  the  outset,  as  indicating  the  point 
towards  which  I  shall  aim  as  my  goal,  that  in  the  ordinary 
use  of  language,  in  the  popular  use  of  language,  I  do  not 
believe  in  either  reward  or  punishment :  I  believe  only  in 
causes  and  results.  This,  as  I  said,  is  the  point  that  I  shall 
aim  at.  Where  shall  I  begin  ? 

I  need  to  ask  you  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  state  of 
mind  of  man,  so  far  as  we  can  conceive  it,  when  he  first 


Reward  and  Punishment  199 

wakes  up  as  a  conscious  being,  and  begins  to  look  out  over 
the  scene  of  nature  and  human  life  with  the  endeavor  to 
interpret  facts  as  they  appear  to  him.  Of  course,  he  knows 
nothing  whatever  of  what  we  mean  by  natural  law :  he  knows 
nothing  of  natural  cause  and  of  necessary  result.  So  far 
as  we  can  discover  by  our  researches,  all  the  tribes  of  men 
about  whom  we  have  been  able  to  gather  any  information 
have  had  a  belief,  if  not  in  God,  at  least  in  gods,  or  in  spir- 
itual existences  and  powers  that  controlled  within  certain 
limits  the  course  of  human  events.  It  may  have  been  the 
worship  of  ancestors,  it  may  have  been  the  worship  of  some 
great  chief  of  the  tribe  ;  but  these  invisible  beings  have 
been  able  to  help  or  hurt  their  followers,  their  worshippers ; 
and  of  course  they  have  been  thought  of  as  governing 
human  life  after  substantially  the  same  methods  that  they 
used  when  they  were  living  here  in  the  body. 

That  is,  it  has  been  a  magical  or  arbitrary  government  of 
the  world  that  has  been  for  ages  the  dominant  one  in  the 
human  mind.  People  have  supposed  that  these  invisible 
beings  desired  them  to  do  certain  things,  to  refrain  from 
doing  certain  other  things,  and  they  have  expected  them  to 
reward  or  punish  them  —  how  ?  By  giving  them  that  which 
they  desired,  on  the  one  hand,  or  sending  them  something 
which  they  did  not  desire,  on  the  other.  They  have  brought 
the  gods  their  offerings,  their  sacrifices,  their  words  of 
praise,  and  have  asked  that  they  might  be  successful  in  war, 
that  they  might  bring  home  the  game  which  they  sought 
when  they  went  on  a  hunting  expedition.  When  there  have 
been  disease,  pestilence,  famine,  drought, —  no  matter  what 
the  nature  of  the  evil, —  they  have  been  regarded  as  allot- 
ments of  these  divine  powers  sent  on  account  of  something 
they  have  done  or  omitted  to  do.  It  never  occurred  to 


2OO  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

them  to  interpret  these  as  part  of  a  natural  order,  because 
they  knew  nothing  about  any  natural  order.  They  reasoned 
as  well  as  they  were  able  to  reason  at  that  stage  of  culture 
in  any  particular  age  of  the  world's  history  which  they  had 
reached.  But  this  has  been  the  thought  of  men  time  out  of 
mind  concerning  the  method  of  the  divine  or  spiritual  or 
unseen  government  of  the  world. 

Is  this  way  of  looking  at  it  confined  to  primitive  man, 
confined  to  pagan  nations  ?  Do  we  find  something  else, 
some  other  condition  of  mind,  when  we  come  to  study  care- 
fully the  Old  Testament  ?  Let  us  see.  Take  the  first  verse 
which  I  read  as  a  part  of  my  text.  The  author  of  this 
Psalm  —  we  do  not  know  who  he  may  have  been  —  says, 
"  I  have  been  young,  and  now  am  old  ;  yet  have  I  not  seen 
the  righteous  forsaken,  nor  his  seed  begging  their  bread." 
As  I  have  read  this  a  great  many  times  in  the  past,  I  have 
wondered  as  to  the  strange  experience  that  this  man  must 
have  had  in  human  life,  if  this  is  a  correct  interpretation  of 
that  experience.  I  have  been  young:  I  do  not  like  to 
admit  that  as  yet  I  am  old ;  but,  whether  I  am  or  not,  I 
have  a  good  many  times  seen  the  righteous  forsaken,  and 
his  seed  begging  their  bread. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  writer  of  this  verse  was  trained 
in  a  theory  of  the  government  of  human  affairs  that  does 
not  at  all  match  the  facts.  He  has  this  magical,  this 
arbitrary  theory  in  his  mind.  It  was  the  general  conception 
I  think,  as  any  one  will  find  by  a  careful  reading  of  the  Old 
Testament  or  study  of  Jewish  history,  the  ordinary  concep- 
tion among  the  Hebrews,  that  God  was  to  reward  people  for 
being  good  by  prosperity,  long  life,  many  children,  herds  of 
cattle,  distinction  among  his  fellow-men,  positions  of  political 
honor  and  power  ;  and  the  threat  of  the  taking  away  of  these 


Reward  and  Punishment  201 

is  frequently  uttered  against  those  that  presume  to  do  wrong. 
In  other  words,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  ordinary  theory  of 
the  government  of  human  affairs  as  set  forth  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  precisely  this  same  one  that  I  have  been  con- 
sidering as  the  natural  and  necessary  outcome  of  the  igno- 
rance and  inexperience  of  early  man. 

As  time  went  on,  now  and  then  some  deeper,  more  spirit- 
ual thinker  begins  to  question  this  method  of  reasoning,  be- 
gins to  wonder  whether  it  is  quite  adequate ;  and  we  have 
a  magnificent  poetical  expression  of  this  kind  of  critical 
thought  in  the  Book  of  Job.  This  Book  of  Job  is  any  way 
and  every  way  worthy  of  your  careful  attention.  It  is  the 
nearest  to  a  dramatic  production  of  anything  in  the  Bible. 
James  Anthony  Froude  said  once  in  regard  to  it  that,  if  it 
were  translated  merely  as  a  poem  and  published  by  itself,  it 
would  take  rank  as  a  literary  work  among  the  few  great 
masterpieces  of  the  world. 

But  the  thing  that  engages  our  attention  this  morning  is 
not  its  power  as  a  dramatic  production,  but  its  criticism  of 
God's  government  of  the  world.  It  has  been  assumed,  as  I 
have  said, —  and  we  are  not  through  with  that  assumption, — 
that,  if  a  man  suffered,  if  he  was  ill,  if  his  wife  or  children 
were  taken  away  from  him,  if  his  property  was  destroyed, 
somehow  he  had  offended  God,  and  that  this  was  a 
punishment  for  the  course  of  wrong-doing  in  which  he  had 
been  engaged.  But  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Job  con- 
ceives that  this  does  not  quite  match  the  facts ;  so  he  gives 
us  this  magnificent  character  that  he  declares  upright,  spot- 
less, free  from  wrong  of  any  kind,  who  yet  is  suffering.  He 
has  lost  his  property, —  it  has  been  swept  away, —  his  chil- 
dren have  been  put  to  death,  almost  everything  that  he 
cared  for  he  has  lost,  and  he  from  head  to  feet  is  sick  of  a 


2O2  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

loathsome  disease ;  and  he  sits  in  the  midst  of  his  depriva- 
tion and  sorrow.  His  friends  gather  around  him  ;  and  with 
this  old  assumption  in  their  minds  some  of  them  begin  to 
taunt  him.  They  say,  "  Now,  Job,  why  not  confess,  why  not 
own  up  as  to  what  you  have  been  doing  ?  Of  course,  you 
have  been  doing  something  wrong,  or  all  this  would  not  have 
happened."  This  is  the  tone  that  one  of  his  critics  takes. 
This  is  the  kind  of  comfort  that  he  receives  in  the  midst  of 
his  sorrow.  But  Job  protests  earnestly  and  indignantly  that 
it  is  not  true.  He  says  he  is  innocent,  there  are  no  secret 
wrongs  in  his  life ;  and  he  wishes  that  he  might  find  some 
way  by  which  he  could  come  into  the  presence  of  the  great 
Ruler  of  the  universe,  and  openly  plead  his  cause.  But  his 
friends  do  not  believe  him. 

Now  the  writer  of  the  book  lets  us  into  the  explanation 
he  has  thought  out  for  this  :  God  for  a  special  reason  is  test- 
ing Job,  to  see  whether  he  will  be  true  to  him  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  he  does  not  get  the  ordinary  blessings  that  the 
people  were  accustomed  to  look  for  as  the  rewards  of  their 
conduct.  But  the  writer  is  not  consistent  with  the  wonder- 
ful position  that  he  makes  Job  assume ;  for,  after  the  trial 
is  all  over,  he  falls  in  with  the  popular  theory,  and  shows  us 
Job,  not  with  the  old  children  who  could  not  be  brought 
back,  but  with  a  lot  of  new  ones,  with  herds  and  cattle 
again  in  plenty,  with  honor  among  his  fellow-citizens,  with 
all  that  heart  could  wish  in  the  way  of  worldly  prosperity 
and  peace. 

So  I  say  the  writer  is  not  quite  consistent,  for  he  falls 
back  at  the  end  on  the  old  theory,  and  he  lets  us  gain  a 
glimpse  behind  the  scenes,  just  enough  to  see  that  there 
are  cases,  special  cases,  where  the  popular  theory  does  not 
hold  ;  but  he  still  seems  to  assume  that,  in  a  general  way, 


Reward  and  Punishment  203 

we  are  to  accept  it  as  correct,  and  as  explaining  the  facts 
of  human  life. 

The  Jews  acted  on  this  theory  in  their  political  history. 
Their  prophets,  their  great  teachers,  asserted  over  and  over 
again  that,  if  they  were  true  to  their  God,  if  they  were  faith- 
ful in  their  obedience  to  the  law,  if  they  lived  out  all  these 
highest  and  finest  ideals  of  ceremonial  as  well  as  heart 
righteousness,  that  they  would  be  mighty  as  a  nation,  that 
their  enemies  would  be  put  under  their  feet,  that  they  would 
have  political  success  and  power ;  and  yet  their  increasing 
insistence  on  this  ceremonial  and  interior  righteousness  of 
thought  and  life  was  found  to  be  no  adequate  defence 
against  the  Roman  legions.  Political  success  did  not  come 
to  them.  In  spite  of  all  their  obedience,  they  were  swept 
out  of  existence  as  a  nation. 

Now  do  we  find  any  difference  in  teaching  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  We  do  ;  and  we  do  not.  The  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament  is  not  consistent  in  this  matter.  If  Jesus 
be  correctly  reported,  his  own  teaching  is  not  quite  consistent 
on  this  subject.  Let  me  give  you  one  or  two  illustrations, 
that  you  may  see  what  I  mean.  John  tells  us  that  a  certain 
man,  who  had  been  born  blind,  was  brought  to  Jesus  to  be 
cured ;  and  the  people  stood  about,  and  said  to  Jesus,  "  Who 
is  it,  this  man  himself  or  his  parents,  that  sinned,  so  that  he 
was  born  blind  ?  "  You  see  it  does  not  occur  to  them  that 
there  is  any  natural  cause  for  a  man's  being  blind,  apart 
from  some  sin  on  the  part  of  somebody.  Who  is  it,  then, 
his  father  or  mother,  or  he  himself,  that  has  sinned,  that  is 
the  cause  of  it  ?  Jesus  says,  "  Neither  this  man  nor  his 
parents  have  sinned,"  and  you  think  at  first  that  you  are 
going  to  get  an  adequate  explanation ;  but  he  straightway 
adds  that  the  man  was  blind  in  order  that  the  works  of  God 


204  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

might  be  manifest  in  him ;  which  we  cannot  accept  to-day 
as  quite  an  adequate  explanation. 

Then  take  the  case  of  the  man  who  was  lying  at  the  pool 
sof  Bethesda,  and  was  reported  as  cured.  Jesus  meets  him, 
after  a  good  deal  of  question  and  criticism  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews,  and  says,  "  Now  you  have  been  healed,  see  to  it 
-that  you  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse  thing  come  to  you," — 
seeming  to  imply  again  that  sin  might  be  punished  by  lame- 
ness, by  affliction  of  this  kind  or  that. 

So  it  seems  to  me  that  we  do  not  get,  even  in  the  New 
Testament,  entirely  free  from  this  old  conception.  Indeed, 
there  are  the  verses  which  I  read  as  a  part  of  our  lesson 
from  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  one  of  which  for  a  clear 
or  more  spiritual  insight  I  have  quoted  as  a  part  of  my 
text, —  "  Blessed  are  they  that  do  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness,  for  they  shall  be  filled  " —  with  what  ?  Filled 
with  righteousness;  not  filled  with  health,  external  pros- 
perity, many  children,  friends,  political  position,  honor. 
"Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall" — what? 
See  God.  "  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy.  Blessed  are  they  that  are  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness' sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

You  see  these  beatitudes  strike  down  to  the  eternal 
principle  of  natural,  necessary  causation  and  result,  just  as 
does  the  last  verse  which  I  have  quoted  from  Galatians, — 
"  Be  not  deceived ;  God  is  not  mocked ;  for  whatsoever  a  man 
soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap," — not  something  else,  that. 
Here  is  a  clear  and  explicit  annunciation  of  the  eternal,  uni- 
versal law  of  cause  and  effect,  of  the  idea  that  those  things 
which  happen  are  not  arbitrary  infliction,  but  natural  and 
necessary  result. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  this  matter  for  a  little  as  we  look 


Reward  and  Punishment  205 

over  the  face  of  human  life  as  it  is  manifested  to  us  at  the 
present  time.  I  suppose  hardly  a  week  passes  that,  either 
by  letter  or  in  conversation,  I  do  not  come  face  to  face  with 
this  same  old  problem,  showing  that  only  partially  and 
here  and  there  have  men  and  women  even  to-day  come  to 
comprehend  the  real  method  after  which  this  universe  of 
ours  is  governed.  For  example,  let  me  give  you  a  few 
illustrations. 

I  have  a  friend  in  Boston,  one  of  the  noblest  men  I  ever 
knew, —  sweet,  gentle,  true :  he  came  to  me  one  day,  and 
said :  "  Mr.  Savage,  I  have  tried  all  my  life  to  be  an  honest 
man.  I  do  not  own  an  ill-gotten  dollar.  I  have  tried  to  be 
kind  and  helpful  to  people  in  need,  in  trouble ;  and  yet,"  — 
and  then  it  began  to  dawn  on  him  that  he  was  not  on  a  very 
logical  track,  for  he  smiled, —  "  and  yet  I  have  not  got  on 
very  well  in  the  world ;  I  have  not  made  a  great  deal  of 
money ;  I  have  not  been  specially  prosperous  in  business." 
And  the  implication  was  that  here,  next  door  or  in  another 
street,  was  a  man  who  had  a  good  many  ill-gotten  dollars, 
and  who  had  not  been  generous  or  kindly  or  humane  or 
tender,  but  who  had  prospered  and  become  rich,  as  he 
had  not.  And  he  raised  this  as  a  serious  objection  against 
the  justice  of  the  government  of  the  world. 

I  have  had  mothers,  I  presume  a  thousand  times,  say  to 
me  :  "  I  have  tried  to  take  the  best  possible  care  of  my  child. 
I  loved  my  child,  I  watched  over  it  night  and  day,  I  have 
money  enough  to  give  it  a  good  education,  I  could  train  it 
into  fitness  for  life  ;  and  yet  my  child  is  taken  away."  Here 
is  somebody  else  who  has  not  the  means  to  educate  her 
child,  perhaps  whose  character  and  intelligence  are  a  good 
deal  below  the  average  level.  Her  child  is  spared, —  spared 
for  what  ?  Spared  for  a  career  for  which  it  will  be  entirely 


2o6  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

unfitted ;  and  the  question  is,  Why  does  God  do  such  things, 
why  is  the  universe  governed  in  this  fashion  ? 

And  I  have  had  persons  say  to  me  :  "I  have  been  ill  all 
my  life,  I  have  suffered  no  end  of  pain  and  trouble  :  I 
wonder  why  ?  What  have  I  done  that  I  must  be  burdened 
and  afflicted  after  this  fashion  ? "  So  these  questions  are 
coming  up  perpetually,  showing  that  underlying  the  ordinary 
surface  of  our  common  daily  life  is  still  this  theory  that  God 
arbitrarily  governs  the  world,  and  rewards  people  for  being 
good  with  health  and  with  money  and  with  children  and  with 
all  sorts  of  prosperity.  There  is  no  end  of  talk  in  regard 
to  "judgments,"  as  they  are  called.  I  remember  when  I  was 
living  in  the  West  —  I  take  this  as  an  illustration  as  good 
as  any  —  a  neighboring  small  city  was  badly  devastated  by 
fire.  All  the  ministers  around  me  in  my  city  began  to  preach 
about  it  as  a  judgment  of  God  for  the  supposed  wickedness 
of  this  city.  One  peculiar  thing  about  this  particular  judg- 
ment, which  I  noticed  as  reported  in  the  papers,  was  that  the 
last  thing  which  the  fire  burned  was  a  church  ;  and  it  left 
standing  next  door,  and  untouched,  a  liquor  saloon.  It 
seemed  to  me  a  very  peculiar  kind  of  divine  judgment,  if 
that  is  what  it  really  was. 

And  so,  as  you  look  into  these  cases  of  supposed  divine 
judgments,  which  people  are  so  ready  to  see  in  regard  to 
their  neighbors,  you  will  find  that  it  has  some  serious  de- 
fect of  this  sort  almost  always  that  makes  you  question 
whether  a  wise  man  would  be  guilty  of  that  method  of  con- 
ducting his  affairs. 

This,  perhaps,  is  enough  by  way  of  setting  forth  the  pop- 
ular method  of  looking  at  these  problems.  I  want  to  ask 
you  now  to  go  with  me  for  a  little  while,  as  I  attempt  to 
analyze  some  of  these  cases,  and  get  at  the  real  principle 
involved  as  to  what  it  is  that  is  really  going  on. 


Reward  and  Punishment  207 

Now  take  this  case  of  the  mother  whose  child  is  taken 
away  from  her,  as  she  says.  Let  us  see  if  we  can  find  out 
what  is  really  being  done.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that 
the  child  has  inherited,  it  may  be  from  a  grandfather  or 
great-grandfather,  from  somewhere  along  the  line,  a  ten- 
dency to  a  particular  kind  of  disease.  It  may  be  that,  with- 
out anybody's  being  to  blame  for  it  or  anybody's  knowing 
it,  the  child  was  exposed  to  some  contagious  disease  on  the 
street  or  at  school.  It  may  be  that  the  mother,  through  a 
little  otherwise  pardonable  vanity,  wishing  to  display  the 
beauty  of  the  child  rather  than  to  dress  it  in  the  healthiest 
manner,  has  been  the  means  of  exposing  it  to  cold.  It  may 
be  any  one  of  a  dozen  things  has  caused  the  death  of 
this  child.  And  do  you  not  see  that  in  every  case  it  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  mother's  moral  goodness 
or  spiritual  cultivation?  It  is  absurd  to  think  that  the 
mother,  in  this  case,  is  being  punished  for  something  that 
she  is  entirely  unconscious  of  having  been  guilty  of.  Do 
you  not  see  that  there  is  no  logical  connection  between  an 
inherited  disease,  between  exposure,  between  taking  cold, 
between  any  of  these  natural  causes  and  the  goodness  of 
the  mother?  Is  it  not  absurd  to  talk  about  their  having 
anything  whatever  to  do  with  each  other  ? 

I  remember  hearing  a  famous  revivalist  preach  some 
years  ago ;  and  in  this  particular  sermon  he  represented 
God  as  using  all  means  to  try  to  turn  such  a  man  from  his 
path  of  evil,  as  he  regarded  it,  into  the  way  of  right  and 
truth  and  salvation  ;  and  he  said  :  First,  perhaps,  God  takes 
his  property  away  from  him;  and  that  does  not  change 
him.  And  by  and  by  he  takes  his  wife  ;  and  that  does  not 
change  him.  And  then  he  takes  one  of  his  children  ;  and,  as 
he  expressed  it,  he  lays  these  coffins  across  his  pathway  in 


208  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

order  to  warn  him  of  his  sinful  condition,  and  turn  him  into 
the  right  way. 

Think  of  a  God  who  kills  other  people  on  account  of  my 
wrong  I 

I  had  a  friend  in  Boston  once,  a  lady,  a  school-teacher, 
who  in  all  seriousness  told  me,  when  her  sister  died,  that 
she  was  afraid  God  had  taken  her  sister  away  because  she 
had  not  been  sufficiently  faithful  in  attending  church  services 
during  Lent.  Think  of  it !  Not  only  the  lack  of  logic  in 
linking  things  like  these  together,  but  the  practical  impiety 
of  attributing  to  God  such  feelings  and  action  in  regard  to 
his  dealings  with  his  children  ! 

Let  us  take  the  case  of  a  man  who,  not  being  highly  ele- 
vated in  character,  becomes  rich.  Let  us  see  if  we  can  get 
at  the  principles  involved  here.  Perhaps  you  can  call  to 
mind  one  or  another  case  that  you  may  be  thinking  of  while 
I  speak.  Of  course  I  shall  mention  no  names.  Here  is 
a  man  who  possesses  remarkable  natural  business  ability, 
power  to  read  the  commerce,  the  business  of  his  times.  He 
deals  with  these  in  a  practical  way.  He  complies  with  the 
conditions  of  accumulating  wealth.  No  matter  for  the  pres- 
ent whether  he  does  wrong  in  doing  it  or  not, —  that  is, 
whether  he  is  unjust  or  hard  or  cruel ;  but  he  complies  with 
the  conditions  for  the  obtaining  of  money  in  this  particular 
department  of  life.  Now  do  you  not  see  that,  no  matter 
what  his  moral  character  may  be  in  other  directions, 
whether  he  is  kind  to  his  wife,  whether  he  is  loving  towards 
his  children,  whether  he  is  generous  in  a  charitable  way, 
whether  he  is  politically  stanch  or  corrupt, —  do  you  not 
see  that  these  questions  are  entirely  irrelevant,  have  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  question  of  success  in  the  money 
field?  He  sows  according  to  the  laws  of  the  product 
which  he  wishes  to  raise,  and  the  product  appears. 


Reward  and  Punishment  209 

Or  take  the  case  of  a  farmer  :  Here  is  a  certain  tract  of 
land  adapted  to  a  particular  crop.  He  sows  wisely  in  this 
field.  He  cultivates  it :  the  rain  and  the  sun  do  their  part ; 
and  in  the  fall  he  has  a  magnificent  result.  Now  has  that 
anything  whatever  to  do  with  the  question  whether  the  man 
was  a  good  man  or  not,  as  to  whether  he  went  to  prayer- 
meeting  or  not,  as  to  whether  he  read  his  Bible  or  not, 
as  to  whether  he  was  profane  or  not,  as  to  whether  he 
was  a  good  neighbor  or  not  ?  Whatsoever  a  man  sow- 
eth,  that  shall  he  reap,  and  reap  it  where  he  sows  it.  Is 
it  not  perfectly  plain  ?  So  in  any  department  of  human 
life,  I  care  not  what,  trace  it  out,  and  you  will  find  that 
precisely  the  same  principle  is  involved,  and  that  you  get 
results,  not  arbitrary  bestowals  of  reward  or  punishment. 

Now  I  must  come  —  having,  I  hope,  made  this  sufficiently 
clear,  though  after  this  fragmentary  fashion  —  to  deal  a 
little  more  with  some  of  the  ethical  sides  of  this  question.  I 
have  had  no  end  of  persons  tell  me,  first  and  last,  that  it 
seemed  to  them  that  the  universe  could  not  be  a  moral 
universe,  that  it  was  not  governed  fairly,  that  reward  and 
punishment  were  not  meted  out  evenly  to  people  ;  and  they 
based  their  criticism  on  statements  of  fact  similar  to  those 
with  which  I  have  been  dealing. 

Now  let  us  look  into  the  matter  a  little  deeply ;  and  let  us 
see  if  we  can  find  any  hint  of  light  and  guidance.  I  have 
had  a  person  within  a  week  say  to  me,  "I  do  not  feel  at  all 
sure  that  it  means  much  that  people  get  the  moral  results  of 
their  moral  action  in  a  particular  department  of  life.  If 
a  person  becomes  a  little  bit  callous  and  hard,  wisely  selfish 
and  prudent,  and  so  prospers  in  the  affairs  of  this  life,  I  am 
not  sure  that  he  is  not  as  well  off  as  anybody,  perhaps  a 
little  better  off, —  perhaps  a  little  better  off  than  a  person  who 
is  sensitive,  and  worries  because  he  does  not  reach  his  ideals ; 


2IO  Oar  Unitarian  Gospel 

and  it  is  possible  that  he  serves  the  world  after  all  quite  as 
well."  This  is  a  kind  of  criticism,  I  say,  that  has  been 
made  to  me  in  the  last  week. 

Let  us  look  at  it  for  just  a  minute.  People  do  not  seem 
able  as  yet  to  understand  that  a  man  is  really  "  punished,"  in 
the  popular  sense  of  that  word,  unless  they  can  see  him 
publicly  whipped.  It  does  not  seem  to  them  to  mean 
anything  because  a  man  deteriorates,  because  the  highest 
and  finest  qualities  in  him  atrophy  and  threaten  to  die  out. 
I  used  an  illustration  in  my  sermon  two  weeks  ago  to  which 
I  shall  have  to  recur  again,  to  see  if  I  can  make  it  mean 
more  than  it  did  then.  It  is  the  story  of  Ulysses  who  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  famous  sorceress,  and  whose  com- 
panions were  turned  into  swine.  Now  would  you  be  willing 
to  be  turned  into  a  pig,  merely  because,  being  a  pig,  you 
would  not  know  anything  about  it,  and  would  not  suffer  ? 
Would  you  be  willing  to  be  reduced  to  the  life  of  an  oyster, 
merely  because,  being  an  oyster,  you  would  be  haunted  by 
no  restless  ideals,  and,  so  far  as  you  had  any  sense  at  all, 
would  probably  be  very  comfortable  indeed  ?  Is  there  no 
"  punishment "  in  this  deprivation  of  the  highest  and  finest 
things  that  we  can  conceive  of  ? 

It  seems  to  me  that  a  person  who  has  deteriorated,  who 
has  become  selfish,  who  has  become  mean,  who  has  lost  all 
taste  for  high  and  fine  and  sweet  things,  and  is  unconscious 
of  them,  is  having  meted  out  to  him  the  worst  conceivable 
retribution.  If  a  man  is  mean  and  knows  it,  if  a  man  is  self- 
ish and  is  conscious  of  it,  if  a  man  is  unjust  and  is  stung  by 
the  reflection,  there  is  a  little  hope  for  him, —  there  is  life 
there,  there  is  moral  vitality,  there  is  a  chance  for  him  to  re- 
cuperate, to  climb  up  into  something  higher  and  finer  ;  but, 
if  he  has  not  only  become  degraded  and  mean,  but  has 


Reward  and  Punishment  2 1 1 

become  contented  in  that  condition,  it  seems  to  me  that  he 
is  worse  off  than  almost  anybody  else  of  whom  we  can  dream. 

Let  us  see  for  a  moment  on  what  conditions  a  man  who 
has  deteriorated  is  well  off.  There  are  three  big  "  ifs  "  in 
the  way,  in  my  thought  of  it.  If  a  man  really  is  a  spiritual 
being,  if  he  is  a  child  of  God,  if  there  are  in  him  possibili- 
ties of  unfolding  of  all  that  is  sweet  and  divine,  then  he  is 
not  well  off  when  he  is  not  developing  these,  and  is  content 
not  to  develop  them.  Browning  says,  in  his  introduction  to 
"  Sordello,"  "The  culture  of  a  soul, —  little  else  is  of  any 
value." 

If  we  are  souls,  and  if  the  culture  of  a  soul  is  of  chiefest 
importance,  then  cursed  beyond  all  words  is  the  man  who 
has  deteriorated  and  become  degraded  and  is  content  to 
have  it  so.  Blessed  beyond  all  words  is  the  soul  that  is 
haunted  by  discontent,  haunted  by  unattained  and  unat- 
tainable ideals,  who  is  restless  because  of  that  which  he 
feels  he  might  be  and  yet  is  not, —  he  who  is  touched  by 
the  far-off  issues  of  divinity,  and  cannot  rest  until  he  has 
grown  into  the  stature  of  the  Divine  ! 

And  then,  once  more,  if  it  be  true  that  it  is  worth  our 
while  to  help  our  fellow-men  in  the  higher  side  of  their 
nature,  to  help  them  be  men  and  women,  to  help  them  real- 
ize that  they  are  children  of  God,  and  to  grow  into  the 
realization  of  it, —  if,  I  say,  this  be  worth  while, —  then 
lamentable  beyond  all  power  of  expression  is  the  condition 
of  that  man  who  does  not  feel  it  and  does  not  care  for  it, 
and  does  not  consecrate  himself  to  its  attainment.  Look 
over  the  long  line  of  those  who  have  served  mankind.  Who 
are  they?  From  Abraham  down,  the  prophets  of  Israel; 
Jesus,  Paul,  Savonarola,  Huss,  Wyclif,  Luther,  Channing, 
Parker, —  who  have  these  men  been  but  the  ones  who  were 


212  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

ready  at  any  price  to  do  something  to  lift  up  and  lead  on 
the  progress  of  mankind?  These  are  the  ones  who  have 
felt  the  meaning  of  those  sublime  words  of  Jesus :  "  He 
that  loseth  his  life  shall  save  it."  If  there  is  any  meaning 
in  that  splendid  passage  from  George  Eliot,  that  is  so  trite 
because  it  is  so  fine, — 

"  Oh  may  I  join  the  choir  invisible 
Of  those  immortal  dead  who  live  again 
In  minds  made  better  by  their  presence  :  live 
In  pulses  stirred  to  generosity, 
In  deeds  of  daring  rectitude,  in  scorn 
For  miserable  aims  that  end  with  self, 
In  thoughts  sublime  that  pierce  the  night  like  stars, 
And  with  their  mild  persistence  urge  man's  search 
To  vaster  issues. 

So  to  live  is  heaven  : 
To  make  undying  music  in  the  world, 
Breathing  as  beauteous  order  that  controls 
With  growing  sway  the  growing  life  of  man. 

This  is  life  to  come, 

Which  martyred  men  have  made  more  glorious 
For  us  who  strive  to  follow.     May  I  reach 
That  purest  heaven,  be  to  other  souls 
The  cup  of  strength  in  some  great  agony, 
Enkindle  generous  ardor,  feed  pure  love, 
Beget  the  smiles  that  have  no  cruelty, — 
Be  the  sweet  presence  of  a  good  diffused, 
And  in  diffusion  ever  more  intense. 
So  shall  I  join  the  choir  invisible 
Whose  music  is  the  gladness  of  the  world,"  — 

if,  I  say,  there  is  any  meaning  in  that  magnificent  song, 
then  indeed  it  is  worth  while  to  be  miserable,  if  need  be, 
worth  while  to  suffer,  worth  while  to  sacrifice  for  the  sake 
of  planting  seed  in  the  spiritual  fields,  and  looking  for  its 
spiritual  results,  and  not  finding  fault  with  the  universe  be- 


Reward  and  Punishment  213 

cause  we  do  not  get  results  of  spiritual  goodness  in  mate- 
rial realms. 

There  is  one  other  "if."  If  it  be  true,  as  I  believe  it  is, 
that  this  life  goes  right  on,  and  that  we  carry  into  the  to-mor- 
row of  another  life  the  precise  and  accurate  results  that  we 
have  wrought  out  in  the  to-day  of  this ;  if  it  be  true  that, 
when  we  get  over  there,  it  will  be  spiritual  facts  and  spiritual 
things  with  which  we  shall  deal, —  then  the  man  who  has 
cultivated  his  spiritual  nature  and  has  reaped  spiritual  re- 
sults has  no  right  to  find  fault  with  the  universe  because  it 
has  not  paid  him  with  material  good. 

Let  us  remember,  then,  that  we  get  what  we  sow.  God 
has  not  promised  to  pay  you  in  greenbacks  for  being  good ; 
God  has  not  promised  to  give  you  physical  health  because 
you  are  gentle  and  tender ;  God  has  not  promised  to  give 
you  long  life  because  you  are  generous  ;  God  has  not  prom- 
ised to  give  you  positions  of  social  or  political  honor  be- 
cause you  are  kind  to  your  neighbors,  faithful  to  your  wife, 
true  to  your  children.  Can  you  not  see  that  whatsoever  a 
man  sowest,  that  shall  he  reap  ;  and  that  he  will  reap  in  the 
field  where  he  sows,  and  not  in  some  other;  and  that  God 
is  dealing  fairly,  justly,  tenderly,  truly,  with  you  in  giving 
you  the  results  at  which  you  aim,  and  not  the  results  at 
which  you  do  not  aim  ? 

So,  if  you  really  care  to  be  a  man,  if  you  care  to  be  a 
woman, — honest,  noble,  tender,  true, —  then  be  these,  and 
be  grateful  that  you  reap  the  reward  where  you  sowed,  and 
do  not  find  fault  with  God  or  the  universe  because  he  does 
not  pay  you  for  things  that  you  have  not  done,  because  he 
does  not  make  a  crop  grow  in  some  field  that  you  have  not 
cultivated, —  because  it  is  eternally  true  that  God  is  not 
mocked,  and  that  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he 
also  reap. 


THINGS   WHICH    DOUBT   CANNOT 
DESTROY. 


THE  critical  and  investigating  work  of  the  modern  world 
threatens  to  shake  not  the  earth  only,  but  also  heaven. 
And  there  are  large  numbers  of  people  who  are  disturbed 
and  afraid :  they  are  troubled  lest  certain  things  that  are 
precious,  that  are  dear  to  them,  may  be  taken  away.  Not 
only  this,  they  are  troubled  lest  things  of  vital  importance 
to  the  highest  life  of  the  world  be  taken  away.  I  propose, 
then,  this  morning  to  run  in  rapid  review  over  a  few  of  the 
changes  that  are  caused  by  the  investigating  spirit  of  the 
time,  and  then  to  point  out  some  things  that  are  not  touched, 
that  cannot  be  shaken,  and  that  therefore  must  remain. 
And  I  ask  you  to  have  in  mind,  as  I  pursue  this  line  of 
thought,  the  question  whether  doubt  has  taken  away  any- 
thing really  valuable  from  mankind.  The  negative  part  of 
my  theme  I  shall  touch  on  very  lightly,  and  dispose  of  as 
briefly  as  I  may. 

What  has  doubt,  what  has  investigation,  done  concerning 
the  universe  of  which  we  are  a  part  ?  In  the  old  days,  be- 
fore doubt  began  its  work,  before  men  asked  questions  and 
demanded  proof,  we  lived  in  a  little,  petty,  tiny  world,  which 
the  imagination  of  the  superstitious  and  the  fear  of  igno- 
rant men  had  created.  But  the  cycles  and  epicycles  which 
Ptolemy  devised,  and  by  means  of  which  he  explained,  as 
well  as  he  knew  how,  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          215 

around  us, —  these  have  passed  away.  The  breath  of  doubt 
has  blown  upon  them  ;  and  they  have  gone,  like  mists  driven 
by  the  wind. 

But  has  doubt  quenched  the  light  of  any  star  ?  Has  doubt 
taken  away  from  the  glory  of  the  universe  ?  Rather,  as  the 
result  of  the  work  of  these  myriad  investigators,  whose  one 
aim  and  end  was  truth,  at  last  we  have  a  universe  worthy 
to  be  the  home  of  an  infinite  God, —  a  universe  that  matches 
our  thought  of  the  Divine,  a  universe  that  thrills  and  lifts  us, 
fills  us  with  reverence,  and  bends  us  to  our  knees  in  the 
attitude  of  worship. 

The  same  spirit  has  raised  no  end  of  questions  concern- 
ing God.  What  has  been  the  result  ?  We  have  lost  the 
old  thought  of  God  in  the  shape  of  a  man  sitting  on  a 
throne  located  in  the  heavens  just  above  the  blue  or  on 
some  distant  star.  We  have  lost  the  thought  of  a  God  as  a 
tyrant,  as  a  jealous  being,  as  angry  every  day  with  his 
children,  as  ready  to  punish  these  children  forever  for  their 
ignorance,  for  their  intellectual  mistakes,  for  their  sins  of 
whatever  kind.  We  have  changed  our  conception  of  him ; 
but  have  we  lost  God  ?  I  will  not  answer  that  question  at 
this  stage  of  the  discourse,  because  I  wish  merely  to  sug- 
gest it  now,  and  dwell  on  it  a  little  more  when  I  come  to  the 
positive  treatment  of  our  morning's  theme. 

Let  us  glance  at  the  Bible  a  moment.  Doubt  and  investi- 
gation have  been  at  work  there.  What  has  been  the  result  ? 
Have  we  lost  the  Bible  ?  No.  We  have  gained  it.  We 
have  lost  those  things  about  it  which  were  intellectual  bur- 
dens because  we  could  not  believe  them,  which  were  a  moral 
burden  because  they  conflicted  with  our  highest  and  noblest 
sense  of  right.  We  no  longer  feel  under  the  necessity  of 
reconciling  human  mistakes  with  divine  infallibility.  Profes- 


216  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

sor  Goldwin  Smith  has  told  us  recently  that  these  old 
theories  of  the  Bible  were  a  millstone  about  the  neck  of 
Christendom,  and  that  they  must  be  gotten  rid  of  if  Chris- 
tianity was  to  live.  This  is  all  that  doubt  and  investigation 
have  done  to  the  Bible.  They  have  cleared  away  the  things 
that  no  sane  and  earnest  and  devout  mind  wishes  to  keep  ; 
and  they  have  restored  to  us  in  all  their  dignity  and  beauty 
and  sweetness  and  power  the  real  human  Bible,  the  Bible 
which  poured  out  of  the  heart  of  the  olden  time,  and  which 
is  in  all  its  truth  and  sweetness,  so  far  as  they  go,  a  revela- 
tion of  the  divinest  things  in  human  thought  and  human 
dream. 

Preachers  tell  us  every  little  while  that  those  who  ask 
questions  have  taken  away  our  Lord,  and  they  know  not 
where  he  has  been  laid.  What  has  this  spirit  done  concern- 
ing Jesus  ?  Has  it  taken  him  away  from  us  ?  Rather,  as 
the  result  of  all  this  question  and  criticism,  at  last  we  have 
found  him, — found  him  who  has  been  hidden  away  for 
ages, —  found  the  man,  divine  son  of  God,  son  of  man, 
brother,  friend,  inspirer,  companion,  helper.  It  has  done 
for  Jesus  the  grandest  service  of  which  we  can  conceive. 

And  now  one  more  point.  People  used  to  suppose  they 
knew  all  about  the  next  world.  They  knew  where  heaven 
was  and  where  hell  was,  and  who  were  to  be  the  inhabitants 
of  either  place,  and  why.  Doubt  and  question  have  been  at 
work  here,  and  now  we  do  not  know  where  heaven  is ;  and 
we  do  not  know  where  hell  is,  except  that  it  is  within  the 
heart  of  those  that  are  not  in  accord  with  the  divine  life. 
Where  the  places  are,  we  know  not ;  but  blessed  beyond  all 
words  be  ignorance  like  this  !  We  know  —  because  we  be- 
lieve in  righteousness  and  truth  —  that  there  is  no  hell  ex- 
cept that  which  we  create  for  ourselves ;  and  that  is  in 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          217 

this  world,  in  any  world  where  there  is  a  breach  of  a  divine 
law.  But  has  the  great  hope  gone  ?  Has  doubt  touched 
that,  so  that  it  has  shrivelled  and  become  as  nothing  ?  That 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  touch  on  a  little  more  at  length  in  a 
moment ;  and  so  I  leave  it  here  with  this  suggestion. 

I  wish  you  now  to  note,  and  to  note  Avith  a  great  deal  of 
care,  that  doubt,  criticism,  question,  investigation,  have  no 
power  to  destroy  anything.  People  talk  as  though,  if  you 
doubted  a  thing,  it  disappeared,  as  though  doubt  had 
magical  power  to  annihilate  in  some  way  a  truth.  If  you 
really  do  doubt  an  important  divine  truth,  it  may  disturb 
and  trouble  you  for  a  while ;  but  the  truth  remains  just  the 
same.  I  remember  some  years  ago  a  parishioner  came  to 
me, —  an  intelligent  lady, —  and  said,  "  Mr.  Savage,  I  have 
about  lost  my  belief  in  any  future  life."  I  smiled,  and  said: 
11 1  am  sorry  for  you,  if  it  interferes  with  your  comfort  and 
peace ;  but  remember  one  thing, —  neither  your  doubt  nor  my 
belief  touches  or  changes  the  fact."  The  eternal  life  is  not 
something  to  be  puffed  away  with  a  breath,  if  it  be  real. 
So  rest  right  there  in  the  firm  assurance  that  what- 
ever is  true  is  true,  and  rests  on  the  eternal  foundation  of 
the  permanence  of  God;  and  asking  questions  about  it, 
digging  away  at  its  foundations,  testing  it  in  any  and  all 
sorts  of  ways,  cannot  by  any  possibility  injure  it.  Enforce 
thus  this  idea,  simple  as  it  seems,  because  thousands  of  men 
and  women  at  the  present  time  are  made  to  tremble  by 
utterances  from  the  pulpit,  as  though  doubt  were  really  a 
destroyer.  Of  course,  it  seems  commonplace  the  moment 
you  think  of  it ;  and,  still  for  your  peace  and  for  the  restful- 
ness  of  your  mind  as  you  look  on  the  things  that  are  taking 
place  about  us,  hold  fast  to  this  simple  idea. 

There  is  one  other  point  which  I  wish  to  raise.     What  is 


2i 8  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

the  use  of  criticism?  What  is  the  use  of  all  this  in- 
vestigating ?  Why  indulge  in  all  this  doubt  ?  And  now  let 
me  give  you  an  illustration  which  will  lead  me  to  answering 
this  question  and  enforcing  the  point  I  have  in  mind.  A 
farmer,  if  he  selects  a  favorable  piece  of  ground,  plants  good 
seed,  cultivates  it  properly,  if  the  rain  falls  and  the  sun 
shines,  and  the  weather  is  propitious,  will  have  a  successful 
crop.  Does  it  make  any  difference  now  whether  the  farmer 
has  correct  ideas  about  soil  and  seed  and  cultivation  ?  Does 
it  make  any  difference  whether  he  has  any  true  conception 
of  the  nature  and  work  of  the  sunshine  in  producing  this 
crop?  In  one  sense,  No.  In  another,  a  very  important 
sense,  Yes.  Suppose  the  farmer,  having  gotten  into  his 
mind  the  idea  that  the  sun  is  the  source  of  all  the  life  and 
growth  of  the  things  that  he  plants  and  the  crops  he  culti- 
vates, should  say,  "  Well,  now,  it  does  not  make  any  differ- 
ence whether  I  have  correct  scientific  theories  about  the  sun 
or  not :  the  sun  carries  on  his  work  just  the  same."  I  have 
heard  people  say,  over  and  over  again,  using  an  illustration 
like  this :  "  What  difference  does  it  make  what  your  theo- 
ries are  about  the  spiritual  life,  about  the  origin  and  nature 
of  religion,  about  morality?  If  you  live  a  good  life,  the 
results  are  just  the  same,  whatever  your  thinking  may  be." 
And  I  grant  it.  But  now  suppose  the  farmer  should  say  to 
himself :  "  The  sun  is  the  source  of  all  the  life  that  I  am 
able  to  produce,  that  I  see  growing  around  me ;  and  now  I 
will  worship  him  as  a  god.  I  will  pray  to  him,  I  will  sing 
songs  of  praise  to  him,  I  will  bring  birds  and  animals  and 
burn  sacrifices  to  him ;  and  so  I  will  win  his  favor,  and 
get  him  to  produce  these  wonderful  results  for  me."  Sup- 
pose he  should  so  seek  his  results,  and  pay  no  attention  to 
the  character  of  the  soil,  to  the  kind  of  seed  he  planted,  or 
to  proper  cultivation  :  would  that  make  no  difference  ? 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          219 

Do  you  not  see  that  theory  may  be  of  immense  practical 
importance  in  certain  contingencies  ?  Whether  he  has  any 
knowledge  of  the  sun  or  not,  if  he  complies  with  the  laws, 
the  conditions,  if  he  is  fortunately  obedient,  then  his 
results  will  be  produced.  But,  if  his  ignorance,  his  super- 
stition, lead  him  to  neglect  the  natural  forces  with  which  he 
deals,  then  it  may  make  all  the  difference  in  the  world.  So, 
as  I  study  the  history  and  development  of  religious  thought, 
I  see  everywhere  that  men  and  women,  through  their  igno- 
rance in  regard  to  the  real  nature  of  the  universe  and  of 
God  and  of  their  own  souls,  are  going  astray,  wasting  timer 
wasting  thought,  wasting  effort,  misdirecting  all  these  in- 
stead of  complying  with  the  real  natural  universal  condi- 
tions on  which  these  noblest  and  highest  results  which  they 
desire  depend. 

If  a  man,  for  example,  believes  that  he  is  to  please  God 
by  a  sacrifice,  by  an  offering,  by  swinging  incense,  by  going 
through  a  certain  ceremony,  instead  of  being  righteous  and 
true,  does  it  make  no  difference  ?  Carry  out  the  idea  as  far 
as  you  please,  I  think  I  have  made  plain  the  thought  I  had 
in  mind. 

So  it  does  make  a  difference  what  our  thoughts,  our 
theories,  may  be ;  and,  therefore,  there  is  good  in  this  work  of 
investigation  which  proposes  to  sift  and  test  and  try  things, 
and  find  out  the  real  nature  of  the  forces  which  confront  us 
and  with  which  we  have  to  deal. 

Now,  then,  I  come  to  the  positive  answering  of  our  ques- 
tion. Are  there  some  things  that  doubt  cannot  touch? 
And  are  these  things  the  most  important  ones,  the  ones  that 
we  need  to  feel  solid  under  our  feet  ?  What  do  we  need  ? 
We  do  not  need  to  be  able  to  unravel  all  the  mysteries  of 
the  universe.  Any  quantity  of  the  questions  we  ask  are  not 


22O  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

practical  ones.  We  do  not  need  to  wait  for  an  answer  to 
them.  Any  number  of  the  things  that  are  in  doubt  are  of 
no  practical  consequence ;  and  we  need  not  wait  for  their 
settlement  before  we  begin  to  live  and  to  help  our  fellow- 
men  and  to  do  what  we  can  to  bring  in  the  coming  kingdom 
of  our  Father. 

I  wish  to  note  now  a  few  of  the  things  that  seem  to  me 
very  stable  things,  that  doubt  cannot  disturb.  And  first  I 
will  say  that  which  I  mean  when  I  use  the  word  "God."  I 
wish  you  to  learn  to  separate  between  the  word  and  the 
reality.  Sometimes  people  are  quarrelling  over  a  label  in- 
stead of  the  reality  that  is  back  of  all.  I  care  very  little  for 
a  name.  I  care  for  things,  for  the  eternal  truths  of  the 
universe.  May  we  then  feel  that  modern  doubt  does  not 
touch  our  belief  in  God  ?  I  ask  you  to  consider  a  moment, 
and  see.  As  we  wake  up,  assuming  nothing,  and  look 
abroad,  what  do  we  find  ?  We  find  ourselves  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  Power  that  is  not  ourselves,  another  Power,  a 
Power  that  was  here  before  we  were  born,  a  Power  that  will 
be  here  after  we  have  died,  a  Power  that  has  produced  us, 
and  so  is  our  father  and  mother  on  any  theory  you  choose 
to  hold  of  it,  a  Power  out  of  which  we  have  come.  Now 
suppose  we  look  abroad,  and  try  to  find  something  in  regard 
to  the  nature  of  this  Power.  We  can  conceive  no  begin- 
ning :  we  can  conceive  no  end.  And  let  me  say  right  here 
that,  as  the  result  of  all  his  lifelong  study  and  thinking  as  an 
evolutionist,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  has  said  that  the  exist- 
ence of  this  infinite  and  eternal  Power,  of  which  all  the 
phenomenal  universe  is  only  a  partial  and  passing  manifesta- 
tion, is  the  one  item  of  human  knowledge  of  which  we  are 
most  certain  of  all. 

An  Infinite  Power,  then,  an  eternal  Power, —  shall  I  say 


Tilings  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          221 

an  intelligent  Power  ?  At  any  rate,  just  as  far  as  our  intelli- 
gence can  reach,  we  find  that  the  universe  matches  that  in- 
telligence, responds  to  it,  so  that  we  must  think  of  it,  it 
seems  to  me,  as  intelligent.  Out  of  that  Power,  as  I  have 
said,  we  have  come ;  and  who  are  we  ?  Persons,  persons 
that  think,  persons  that  feel,  persons  that  love,  persons  that 
hope ;  and  we  are  the  children  of  this  Power,  and,  accord- 
ing to  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  science,  nothing 
can  be  evolved  which  was  not  first  involved, —  the  stream 
cannot  rise  higher  than  its  source,  that  which  is  produced 
must  be  equal  to  that  which  produces  it. 

This  Power,  then,  eternal,  infinite,  intelligent,  must  be  as 
much  as  what  we  mean  by  person,  by  thought,  by  love,  by 
hope,  by  all  that  makes  us  what  we  are.  Shall  we  call  a 
Power  like  this  God  ?  Shall  we  call  it  Nature  ?  Shall  we 
call  it  Law  ?  Shall  we  call  it  Force  ?  It  seems  to  me  that, 
if  we  take  any  name  less  and  lower  than  God,  we  are  in- 
dulging in  a  huge  assumption,  and  a  negative  assumption 
at  that.  Suppose  that,  looking  at  one  of  you,  I  should  call 
you  body  instead  of  calling  you  man.  I  should  be  assum- 
ing that  you  are  only  body,  which  I  have  no  right  to  do.  If 
I  call  this  Infinite  Power,  then,  Nature,  Force,  Law,  Matter, 
I  am  indulging  in  a  negative  assumption  which  is  scientifi- 
cally unwarranted.  As  a  reasonable  being,  then,  I  think  I 
am  scientifically  warranted  in  saying  that  belief  in  God  is 
something  that  all  investigation  only  affirms,  and  affirms 
over  and  over  again,  and  with  still  greater  and  greater 
force. 

I  have  not  time  to  go  into  this  at  any  further  length  this 
morning  ;  but  I  believe  that  we  are  scientifically  right  in  say- 
ing that  all  the  doubt,  all  the  investigation,  all  the  question- 
ing of  the  \vorld,  have  only  given  us  a  stronger  and  more 


222  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

solid  assurance  that  we  have  a  divine  Power  around  us,  and 
that  we  are  the  children  of  that  Power. 

In  the  next  place,  to  carry  the  idea  a  little  farther,  we 
want,  if  we  may,  to  believe  that  this  Infinite  and  eternal 
Power  manifested  in  the  universe  is  a  good  Power.  If  it  be 
not,  we  are  hopeless.  I  hear  reformers  sometimes  in  their 
zeal  picturing  the  dreadful  condition  of  affairs  socially  or 
industrially  or  politically,  and  saying  that  the  world  is  get- 
ting worse  and  worse,  that  the  rich  are  getting  richer,  and 
the  poor  are  getting  poorer,  and  the  republic  is  becoming 
more  corrupt  week  by  week  and  year  by  year,  giving  the 
impression  that  the  world  in  general  is  on  the  down  grade. 
If  I  believed  that,  I  should  give  it  up,  I  should  see  no  rea- 
son for  struggle  and  effort.  If  an  Infinite  Power  is  against 
me  in  my  efforts  to  do  good,  what  is  the  use  of  my  making 
the  effort  ? 

We  want  to  know,  then,  as  to  whether  a  belief  in  the 
goodness  of  this  Infinite  Power  is  a  thing  that  doubt  and 
investigation  have  not  touched  and  cannot  disturb.  Let 
us  consider  just  a  moment  one  or  two  thoughts  bearing 
upon  it. 

The  pessimist  tells  us  that  the  universe  is  bad  all  the 
way  through,  that  this  is  the  worst  possible  kind  of  world. 
When  a  man  makes  a  statement  like  that,  I  always  wish  to 
ask  him  a  question  which  it  seems  to  me  absolutely  over- 
turns his  position, —  how  did  he  happen  to  find  it  out  ?  If 
the  universe  is  bad  all  through,  essentially  bad,  where  did 
he  get  his  moral  ideal  in  the  light  of  which  to  judge  and 
condemn  it  ?  How  does  this  bad  universe  produce  an 
amount  of  justice  and  truth  and  love  to  be  used  as  a  meas- 
uring-rod in  order  to  find  out  whether  it  will  correspond 
with  these  ideals  or  not  ?  That  one  question  seems  to  me 
enough  to  turn  pessimism  into  nonsense. 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          223 

Let  us  look  at  it  in  another  way.  As  we  look  back, 
as  far  as  we  can  towards  the  beginning  of  things,  we  find 
this  fact :  when  man  appeared  on  the  earth,  conscience  was 
born,  as  I  told  you  the  other  day,  a  sense  of  right  came 
with  him,  and  since  that  day  he  has  been  struggling  to 
attain  and  realize  an  ever  and  ever  enlarging  and  heighten- 
ing ideal.  This,  then,  the  conscience,  the  sense  of  right, 
the  ideal,  must  be  a  part  of  the  nature  of  the  universe  that 
has  produced  them.  And  we  notice  that  these  have  been 
growing  with  the  advance  of  the  ages.  Before  dwelling  on 
that  a  little  farther,  let  me  touch  another  consideration 
which  is  germane  to  it. 

If  you  look  over  the  face  of  human  society,  you  get  proof 
positive,  scientific  demonstration  unquestionable,  that  good 
is  in  the  majority,  love  is  the  majority  power  of  the  world. 
How  do  I  know?  You  draw  up  a  list  of  all  those  things 
that  you  call  evil,  and  you  will  note,  as  you  analyze  them, 
that  they  are  the  things  that  tend  to  disintegrate,  to  sepa- 
rate, to  tear  down ;  and  you  draw  up  a  list  of  those  things 
that  you  call  good,  and  you  will  find  that  they  are  the  things 
that  tend  to  build  up,  that  bind  human  society  together,  and 
help  on  life  and  growth  and  happiness. 

Now  the  simple  fact  that  human  society  exists  proves 
that  the  things  that  tend  to  bind  together  are  more  powerful 
than  the  things  that  tend  to  disintegrate  and  tear  down. 
Just  as,  for  instance,  if  you  see  a  planet  swinging  in  the 
blue  to-night,  you  will  know  that  the  centripetal  power  is 
stronger  than  the  centrifugal,  or  there  would  be  no  planet 
there.  That  which  tends  to  hold  it  together  is  mightier 
than  that  which  tends  to  disintegrate  and  fling  its  particles 
away  from  each  other.  So  the  simple  fact  that  human 
society  exists  proves  that  good  is  in  the  majority. 


224  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

And  then,  as  we  trace  the  development  of  human  society 
from  the  far-off  beginning,  we  find  that  justice,  truth,  ten- 
derness, pity,  love,  helpfulness, —  all  these  qualities  have  been 
on  the  increase,  and  are  growing ;  and,  since  the  Power  that 
has  wrought  in  lifting  up  and  leading  on  mankind  is  un- 
spent, we  believe  that  that  Infinite  Power  of  which  we  have 
been  speaking  is  underneath  this  lifting,  is  behind  this 
progress,  and  that  the  end  may  reasonably  be  expected  to 
issue  in  that  perfection  of  which  we  dream  and  whose  out- 
lines we  dimly  see  afar  off. 

An  infinite  power,  then,  a  power  that  is  good,  a  power 
that  we  may  study,  partially  understand,  at  any  rate,  and 
co-operate  with.  We  can  help  on  this  progress  instead 
of  hindering  it.  We  can  do  something  to  make  the  world 
better.  Here  are  two  things  then, —  God  and  goodness, — 
that  no  doubt,  no  investigation,  have  ever  been  able  to 
touch  or  destroy. 

A  third  thing.  We  want  to  believe  that  there  is  a  mean- 
ing in  these  little  individual  lives  of  ours.  Sometimes, 
when  we  read  of  pestilences  or  the  great  wars  of  the  world, 
when  we  think  of  children  born  and  dying  so  soon  almost 
as  they  are  born,  when  we  note  the  brevity  of  even  the 
longest  life  and  take  into  account  the  sweep  of  the  ages,  we 
sometimes  find  ourselves  depressed  with  the  thought  that 
these  human  lives  of  ours  mean  so  little.  It  sometimes 
seems  as  though  nature  cared  nothing  for  us,  and  swept  us 
away  as  the  first  cold  and  the  frost  sweep  away  the  millions 
of  flies  that  had  been  buzzing  their  little  hour  of  sunshine. 

We  need  to  feel,  then,  if  we  are  to  live  manly,  womanly 
lives,  that  there  is  some  plan,  or  may  be  some  purpose  in 
our  being  born,  in  our  little  struggle  of  a  few  years,  in  our 
being  thwarted,  in  our  succeeding,  in  our  being  sick  or  well, 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          225 

in  .our  being  rich  or  poor,  in  our  being  learned  or  ignorant. 
Does  it  make  any  difference  how  we  live  these  lives  of 
ours?  Is  there  significance  in  them,  any  purpose,  any 
plan,  any  outcome,  to  make  it  worth  while  for  us  to  struggle 
and  strive  ?  We  need  to  know  this ;  and  what  do  the 
investigation  and  the  doubt  and  the  struggle  of  the  world 
say  to  us  concerning  these  ?  If  there  is  anything  which 
science  teaches  us,  it  is  that  the  infinite  God,  the  Power, 
whatever  we  name  it,  that  is  the  thought  and  life  of  this 
universe,  is  expressed  just  as  perfectly  in  the  tiniest  atom 
as  in  the  most  magnificent  galaxy.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  an  imperfect  atom  in  this  universe.  The  infinitesimal 
atoms  below  us,  and  the  tiny  orbits  through  which  these 
atoms  and  molecules  sweep,  are  as  much  in  the  grasp  of 
the  Eternal  Law  as  the  movements  of  the  stars  over  our 
heads. 

Things  are  not  lost  in  this  universe  out  of  the  eternal  pur- 
pose because  they  are  little.  So  our  apparent  littleness,  the 
weakness,  feebleness  of  our  lives,  need  not  disturb  the  gran- 
deur of  our  trust  in  this  direction. 

Then  as  we  study  ourselves,  as  we  see  the  good  that  has 
been  growing  through  the  ages,  and  as  we  note  the  fact  that 
I  hinted  at  a  moment  ago,  that  we  can  plant  ourselves  in  the 
way,  and  hinder  the  working  of  the  Divine,  so  far  as  our 
tiny  strength  goes,  or  that  we  can  study  the  conditions  of 
this  growth  and  co-operate  and  help  it  on,  and  so  be  just  as 
truly  a  builder  of  the  highest  and  finest  humanity  of  the 
future  as  God  is  himself, —  as  we  note  this,  are  not  our  little 
lives  raised  into  dignity  and  touched  with  glory  ?  And  why 
should  I  cringe  and  humiliate  myself  in  the  presence  of  a 
planet  a  thousand  times  larger  than  our  earth,  or  a  sun  a 
million  and  a  half  times  larger  than  the  planet  that  shakes  to 


226  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

its  centre  as  I  stamp  my  tiny  foot  ?  I,  or  one  like  me,  has 
measured  the  sun,  weighed  it  as  an  apothecary  can  weigh  a 
gram  in  his  scales.  I  have  untangled  the  rays  of  his  light, 
and  am  able  to  tell  the  substances  that  are  burning  those 
ninety  millions  of  miles  away,  in  order  to  send  down  that  ray 
of  light  to  our  earth.  I  have  untangled  the  mysteries  of  the 
heavens,  and  find  these  only  aggregations  of  matter  like  those 
of  which  my  body  is  composed ;  but  I  deal  with  all  these  and 
overtop  them,  speeding  with  my  thought  with  the  rapidity 
that  leaves  the  lightning  behind.  And  I  know  that,  because 
I  can  think  God  and  can  trace  his  thoughts  after  him  as 
he  goes  through  his  creative  processes,  so  I  am  more  than 
these, —  a  child  of  the  Creator.  I  may  feel  as  a  little  boy 
feels  who  stands  beside  his  father  who  is  the  captain  of 
some  mighty  ship.  The  ship  may  be  a  million  times 
greater  than  he ;  but  the  captain's  intelligence  and  hand 
made  it,  shaped  it,  rules  it,  turns  it  whithersoever  he  will. 
And  I  am  the  captain's  child,  like  him,  and  capable  of 
matching  his  masterly  achievement. 

And  so  I  may  believe  that  I,  as  a  child  of  the  infinite 
Father,  am  of  infinite  importance  to  him  in  this  universe  of 
his  ;  and  lean  live  a  grand  and  noble  life.  Nobody  can  harm 
me  but  myself.  Place  an  obstacle  in  my  path,  and,  whether 
it  be  insurmountable  or  not,  I  may  show  myself  a  coward  or 
a  hero  as  I  face  it.  Tell  me  I  have  made  a  mistake,  I  can 
repair  it.  Tell  me  I  have  committed  some  moral  error,  am 
guilty  of  sin,  I  confess  it.  But  I  can  make  all  these  mistakes 
and  sins  stairways  up  which  I  can  climb  nearer  and  nearer 
to  God.  You  may  test  me  with  sorrows,  affliction,  take 
away  my  property,  take  away  my  health,  take  away  my 
friends ;  and  the  way  in  which  I  receive  these  may  either 
make  me  nobler  or  poorer  and  meaner,  as  I  will.  The 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          227 

sun  shines  upon  the  earth.  It  turns  one  clod  hard,  makes  it 
incapable  of  producing  anything.  It  softens  and  sweetens 
another, —  the  same  sun  :  the  difference  is  in  the  way  in 
which  it  is  received.  So  these  influences  may  touch  me, 
may  make  me  hard  and  bitter  and  mean  and  rebellious,  or  I 
may  stand  all,  and  say,  as  the  old  Stoics  used  to,  "  Even  if 
the  gods  are  not  just,  I  will  be  just,  and  shame  the  gods." 

So  man  may  say,  Whatever  comes  upon  me,  I  will  meet 
it  like  a  man,  and  like  a  child  of  the  Highest,  and  so  make 
my  life  significant,  a  part  of  the  divine  plan,  something  glo- 
rious and  real. 

One  thought  more.  When  we  have  got  through  with  this 
life,  and  stand  on  the  shore  of  a  sea  whose  wavelets  lap  the 
sands  at  our  feet,  and  the  ships  of  those  that  depart  go  out 
into  the  mist,  and  we  wonder  whither, —  what  has  doubt 
done,  what  has  investigation  done,  touching  this  great  hope 
of  ours,  as  we  face  that  which  we  speak  of  as  the  Unknown  ? 
So  far  as  the  old-time  and  traditional  belief  is  concerned,  I 
hold  that  doubt  has  been  of  infinite  and  unspeakable  ser- 
vice. Certainly,  I  could  rather  have  no  belief  at  all  than 
the  old  belief.  Certainly,  I  would  rather  sink  into  uncon- 
sciousness and  eternal  sleep  than  wake  to  watch  over  the 
battlements  of  heaven  the  ascent  of  the  smoke  of  the  tor- 
ment that  goeth  up  forever  and  ever.  But  is  there  any 
rational  ground  for  hope  still?  I  cannot  stop  this  morning 
even  to  suggest  to  you  the  grounds  for  the  assertion  that  I 
am  about  to  make.  I  believe  that,  if  we  have  not  already 
demonstrated  eternal  life,  we  are  on  the  eve  of  such  demon- 
stration. I  believe  that  another  continent  is  to  be  discov- 
ered as  veritably  as  Columbus  discovered  this  New  World. 
As  he,  as  he  neared  the  shore,  saw  floating  tokens  upon  the 
waters  that  indicated  to  him  that  land  was  not  far  away,  so 


228  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

I  believe  that  tokens  are  all  about  us  of  this  other  country, 
which  is  not  a  future,  but  only  a  present,  unseen  and  un- 
known to  the  most  of  us. 

But  grant,  if  you  will,  that  that  is  not  to  be  attained, 
modern  investigation  and  doubt  have  done  nothing  to  touch 
the  grounds  of  the  great  human  hope  that  springs  forever  in 
the  breast,  that  hope  which  is  born  of  love,  born  of  trust, 
born  of  our  dreams,  born  of  our  yearning  towards  the 
land  whither  our  dear  ones  have  departed. 

Let  me  read  you  just  a  few  lines  of  challenge  to  those 
that  would  raise  a  question  as  to  the  reality  of  this  belief :  — 

What  is  this  mystic,  wondrous  hope  in  me, 

That,  when  no  star  from  out  the  darkness  born 
Gives  promise  of  the  coming  of  the  morn, 

When  all  life  seems  a  pathless  mystery 

Through  which  tear-blinded  eyes  no  way  can  see ; 
When  illness  comes,  and  life  grows  most  forlorn, 
Still  dares  to  laugh  the  last  dread  threat  to  scorn, 

And  proudly  cries,  Death  is  not,  shall  not  be  ? 

I  wonder  at  myself !     Tell  me,  O  Death, 

If  that  thou  rul'st  the  earth,  if  "  dust  to  dust " 
Shall  be  the  end  of  love  and  hope  and  strife, 
From  what  rare  land  is  blown  this  living  breath 
That  shapes  itself  to  whispers  of  strong  trust, 
And  tells  the  lie,  if  ''tis  a  lie,  of  life  ? 

Where  did  this  wondrous  dream  come  from  ?  How  does 
it  grow  as  the  world  grows  ?  It  must  be  a  whisper  of  this 
eternal  Being  to  our  hearts  ;  and  so,  in  spite  of  all  the  ad- 
vance of  knowledge,  all  the  criticism,  it  remains  untouched, 
brightening  and  growing.  And  so  there  is  reason,  as  we  gaze 
out  ori  the  future,  why  we  should  look  with  contempt,  if  you 
will,  upon  the  conditions  that  trouble  us  in  this  life, — the 


Things  Which  Doubt  Cannot  Destroy          229 

burdens,  the  sorrows,  the  illnesses, —  when  all  that  life  means 
at  its  highest  is  that  out  of  the  conditions,  whatever  they 
are,  I  should  shape  a  manhood,  cultivate  a  soul,  make  my- 
self worth  living,  fitting  myself  for  that  which  gleams  through 
the  mist  a  promise,  if  you  will,  of  something  there  beyond. 

Now  I  wish  simply  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
doubt  does  not  touch  this  eternal  Power,  does  not  touch  the 
fact  that  this  is  a  good  Power,  and  that  it  is  on  the  side  of 
goodness,  does  not  touch  the  fact  that  we  are  the  children 
of  that  Power  and  may  co-operate  with  it  for  good  and  share 
its  ultimate  triumph,  does  not  touch  the  great  hope  that 
makes  it  worth  while  for  us  to  suffer,  to  bear,  to  dare  all 
things.  And  these  great  trusts,  are  they  not  all  we  need  to 
be  men,  to  be  women,  to  conquer  the  conditions  of  life  and 
prove  ourselves  children  of  the  Highest  ? 


EVOLUTION  LOSES  NOTHING  OF 
VALUE  TO  MAN. 


I  TAKE  two  texts,  one  of  them  from  the  New  Testament. 
It  may  be  found  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthew,  the  seventeenth  verse, — "  Think  not  that  I  came 
to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets :  I  came  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil."  The  other  text  is  from  Emerson  :  — 

"  One  accent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
The  heedless  world  hath  never  lost." 

The  theory  of  evolution  to-day,  in  the  minds  of  all  com- 
petent students,  is  quite  as  firmly  established  as  is  the  law 
of  gravity  or  the  Copernican  theory  in  astronomy.  But, 
when  it  was  first  propounded  in  its  modern  form  by  Her- 
bert Spencer,  when  he  issued  his  first  book,  and  when 
Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species  "  was  published,  there  was  an 
outcry,  especially  throughout  the  religious  world.  There 
was  a  great  fear  shuddered  through  the  hearts  of  men. 
They  felt  as  though  the  dearest  things  on  earth  were 
threatened  and  were  likely  to  be  destroyed.  Essayists  de- 
clared that  this  theory  undermined  the  foundations  of 
morals.  They  said  that  it  took  away,  not  only  the  Bible,  but 
God  and  all  rational  religion.  They  told  us  that,  in  tracing 
the  ancestry  of  man  back  and  down  to  the  animals,  human- 
ity was  being  desecrated,  and  that  the  essential  feature  of 
man  as  a  child  of  God  was  being  taken  away. 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  231 

If  I  believed  that  any  of  these  things  were  true,  I  might 
not  be  an  enemy  of  evolution,  if  indeed  it  be  established ; 
for  there  is  very  little  reason  in  a  man's  setting  himself 
against  an  established  truth.  But  I  should  certainly  be 
very  sad,  and  should  wish  that  we  might  hold  some  other 
theory  of  things.  But  I  believe  that  it  will  appear,  as  we 
study  the  matter  a  little  while  carefully,  that  not  only  are 
these  charges  that  have  been  brought  against  the  theory 
baseless,  but  that  right  here  is  to  be  found  not  only  the 
real  progress  of  the  world,  but  the  true  conservatism.  Evolu- 
tion is  the  most  conservative  theory  that  has  ever  been  held. 
It  keeps  everything  that  has  been  found  serviceable  to  man. 
It  may  transform  it.  It  may  lift  it  to  some  higher  level,  on 
to  some  loftier  range  of  life ;  but  it  keeps  and  carries  for- 
ward everything  that  helps.  This  inevitably  and  in  the 
nature  of  things. 

There  are  two  great  tendencies  which  are  characteristic  of 
that  method  of  progress  or  growth  which  we  call  by  the 
name  of  evolution.  One  is  the  hereditary  tendency,  and  the 
other  is  the  tendency  to  variation.  One,  if  it  were  in  full 
force,  would  merely,  forever  and  forever,  repeat  the  past : 
the  other,  if  it  were  in  full  force,  would  blot  out  all  the  past, 
and  forever  be  creating  something  new.  It  is  in  the  balance 
of  these  two  tendencies  that  we  discover  the  orderly  growth 
of  the  world ;  and  this  orderly  growth  it  is  which  constitutes 
evolution.  Let  me  illustrate :  Here  is  a  tree,  for  example. 
The  tendency  that  we  call  heredity  would  simply  constantly 
repeat  the  past :  the  tendency  to  vary  would  vary  the  tree 
out  of  existence.  The  ideal  is  that  it  shall  keep  its  form, 
for  example,  as  an  oak,  but  that,  in  the  process  of  growth, 
the  bark  shall  expand  freely  and  sufficiently  to  make  room 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  new  life.  Now,  if  the  bark  had 


232  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

power  to  refuse  expansion,  of  course,  you  know,  the  tree 
would  die.  If  there  were  not  power  enough  to  maintain  the 
form,  then,  again,  the  tree  would  cease  to  exist.  This  you 
may  take  as  a  type  and  illustration  of  the  method  of  all 
life  and  all  progress  everywhere. 

Those  people  who  naturally  represent  the  heredity  ten- 
dency —  what  we  call  the  conservative  people  of  the  world  — 
are  the  ones  who  are  always  afraid  of  any  change.  They 
deprecate  the  utterance  of  new  ideas.  They  hesitate  to 
accept  any  new-fangled  notions,  as  perhaps  they  call  them. 
They  are  afraid  that  something  precious,  something  sweet, 
something  dear,  that  belonged  to  the  past,  may  be  lost. 

This  manifests  itself  in  all  departments  of  life.  I  suppose 
that  there  never  was  an  improvement  proposed  in  the  world 
that  somebody  did  not  object  to  it  in  the  interests  of  the 
established  order.  And  yet,  if  these  people  that  do  not 
want  any  changes  made  had  had  control  of  the  world  ten 
thousand  years  ago,  where  should  we  be  to-day  ?  We 
should  still  be  barbarians  in  the  jungles.  For  it  is  because 
these  people  have  not  been  able  to  keep  the  world  still 
that  we  have  advanced  here  and  there  in  the  direction  of 
what  we  are  pleased  to  call  civilization.  You  remember, 
for  example,  as  illustrating  this  opposition,  how  the  working- 
men,  the  laborers  of  the  time,  a  few  years  ago,  in  England, 
fought  against  the  introduction  of  machinery.  They  said 
machinery  was  going  to  take  their  work  away,  it  was  going 
to  break  down  the  old  industrial  order  of  the  world,  it  was 
going  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  laborer  to  get  his  living. 
A  few  machines  were  to  do  the  world's  work ;  and  the  great 
multitude  were  to  be  idle,  and,  not  having  anything  to  do, 
were  to  receive  no  pay  for  labor,  and  consequently  were  to 
starve.  This  was  the  cry.  The  outcome  has  been  that 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  233 

there  has  been  infinitely  more  done,  a  much  larger  number 
of  laborers  employed,  employed  less  hours  in  the  day,  paid 
higher  wages ;  and  in  every  direction  the  condition  of  the 
industrial  world  has  been  improved.  I  speak  of  this  simply 
as  an  illustration  of  this  tendency. 

When  we  come  to  religion,  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  the 
opposition  here  should  be  bitterer  than  anywhere  else  in  the 
world ;  and  it  always  has  been.  If  you  think  of  it  just  a 
little,  if  you  read  the  history  of  the  world  a  little,  you  will 
find  that  the  last  thing  on  earth  that  people  have  been  willing 
to  improve  has  been  their  religion.  And  this,  I  say,  is  per- 
fectly natural.  Why  ?  Because  men  have  instinctively  felt 
—  and  rightly  felt,  as  I  believe  —  that  religion  was  the  most 
important  thing  in  human  life.  They  felt  that  it  was  the 
most  sacred  thing,  that  on  it  depended  higher  and  more 
permanent  interests  than  on  anything  else ;  and  they  have 
naturally  been  timid,  naturally  shrunk  from  change,  with  the 
fear  that  changing  the  theories  and  the  practices  and  the 
thoughts  was  going  to  endanger  the  thing  itself.  They  have 
said,  We  will  hold  on,  at  any  rate,  to  these  reverences,  these 
worships,  these  precious  trusts,  these  hopes  ;  and  we  will 
hold  on  to  the  vessels  in  which  \ve  have  carried  them,  be- 
cause how  do  we  know,  if  the  vessels  are  changed  or  taken 
away,  that  we  may  not  lose  the  precious  contents  them- 
selves? This,  I  say,  has  been  the  feeling;  and  it  has  been 
a  perfectly  natural  feeling. 

I  wish  then,  this  morning,  for  a  little  while  to  review 
with  you  some  of  the  steps  in  evolution  that  the  world  has 
taken,  and  let  you  see  how  it  has  worked  in  different  de- 
partments of  human  thought  and  human  life,  so  that  you 
may  become  convinced  —  if  possible,  as  I  am — that  evolution 
has  never  thrown  away,  has  never  lost,  anything  precious  in 


234  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

any  department  of  the  world  since  human  life  began.  If  I 
believed  it  did,  I  would  fight  against  it.  For  instance, 
here  is  a  devout  Catholic  servant-girl.  She  believes  in  her 
saints.  She  counts  her  beads  and  recites  her  Ave  Marias. 
She  goes  to  the  cathedral  on  Sunday  morning.  And  this  is 
her  world  of  poetry  and  romance.  Here  is  a  source  of 
comfort.  This  throws  a  halo  around  the  drudgery  of  the 
kitchen,  the  service  of  the  house  in  which  she  is  an  em- 
ployee. Would  I  take  away  this  trust,  this  poetry,  this 
romance,  untrue  as  I  believe  it  to  be  in  form,  inadequate  as 
I  believe  it  to  be  ?  Would  I  take  it  away,  and  leave  her 
mind  bare,  her  heart  empty,  leave  her  without  the  comfort, 
without  the  inspiration  ?  Not  for  one  moment.  I  would 
take  it  away  only  if,  in  the  process,  I  could  supply  her  with 
something  just  a  little  better,  a  little  more  nearly  true, — 
something  that  would  give  her  comfort,  something  that 
would  be  an  inspiration  to  her,  something  that  would  buoy 
her  up  as  a  hope,  something  that  would  help  her  to  be  faith- 
ful and  true  in  the  work  of  her  daily  life.  This  is  what 
evolution  means.  It  means  taking  away  the  old,  and,  in  the 
process,  substituting  therefor  something  a  little  bit  better.  I 
would  not  take  away  the  idol  of  the  lowest  barbarian  unless 
I  could  help  him  to  take  a  step  a  little  higher,  so  that  he 
should  see  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  thing  that  the  idol 
stood  for,  and  so  enable  him  to  walk  his  pathway  of  life  as 
firmly,  as  faithfully,  as  hopefully,  as  he  did  before. 

I  have  been  watching  the  work  that  has  been  going  on  in 
our  streets  during  the  last  months.  You,  too,  have  seen  how 
they  will  replace  the  track  on  an  entire  line  of  railway  with- 
out stopping  the  running  of  the  cars.  They  take  away  the 
old  and  worn  and  poorer,  but  constantly  substitute  some- 
thing better  for  it ;  and  human  life  moves  right  on.  Every- 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  235; 

thing  is  better ;  the  change  has  come ;  but  that  change  is 
an  improvement.  This  is  what  evolution  does ;  for  evolution 
is  nothing  new  in  the  world.  It  is  only  the  name  for  the 
method  of  God,  which  is  as  old  as  the  universe  itself, —  new 
to  us  because  we  have  just  discovered  it ;  but  as  old  as  the 
light  of  a  star  that  has  been  travelling  for  twenty-five  thou- 
sand years,  and  has  just  come  into  the  field  of  the  astrono- 
mer's telescope,  so  that  he  announces  it  as  a  new  discovery. 
This  is  what  it  means. 

Now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
world  below  us  —  the  world  of  the  trees  and  the  shrubs 
and  the  flowers  and  the  plants  —  this  evolutionary  force  is 
working  after  precisely  the  same  method  that  I  have  just 
been  indicating.  All  the  fair,  the  beautiful  things  have 
been  developed  under  this  process,  in  accordance  with  this 
method,  out  of  the  first  bare  and  rough  and  crude  manifes- 
tations of  vegetable  life.  Nothing  has  been  thrown  away 
that  was  of  any  value.  Take  it,  for  example,  in  regard 
to  the  wild  weeds  which  have  become  the  oats  and  the 
wheat  and  the  barley  and  the  rye  of  the  world.  All  the  old 
that  was  of  value  has  been  kept  and  has  been  developed 
into  something  higher  and  finer  and  sweeter.  The  abo- 
riginal crab-apple  has  become  a  thousand  luscious  kinds  of 
fruits;  and  the  flowers  —  all  their  beauty,  all  their  fragrance, 
all  their  color  and  form  —  are  the  result  of  the  working  of  this 
method  of  God's  power  that  we  have  called  evolution. 
Nothing  of  any  value  is  left  behind  in  the  uncounted  ages 
of  the  past.  All  that  is  of  worth  to-day  has  been  trans- 
formed and  lifted  to  some  higher  level  and  made  a  part  of 
the  wondrous  life  that  is  all  around  us. 

So,  when  you  come  to  the  animal  life,  you  find  the  same 
thing.  The  swift  foot,  the  flashing  wing,  the  beauty  of  color, 


236  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

—  all  the  wonders  of  animal  life  have  simply  been  developed 
in  accordance  with  this  method  and  under  this  impelling 
force  which  we  call  evolution,  which  is  only  a  name  for  the 
"working  of  God. 

When  we  come  up  to  the  level  of  man,  what  do  we  find  ? 
Man  as  an  animal  is  not  the  equal  of  a  good  many  of  the 
•other  animals  in  the  world.  He  is  not  as  swift  as  the  deer,  he 
is  not  as  strong  as  the  lion,  he  cannot  fly  in  the  air  like  a  bird, 
lie  cannot  live  in  the  sea  like  the  fishes.  He  is  restricted  to 
the  comparatively  contracted  area  of  the  surface  of  the  land. 
He  is  not  as  perfect  as  an  animal ;  but  what  has  evolution 
done  ?  It  has  given  him  power  of  conquest  over  all  these, 
because  the  evolutionary  force  has  left  the  bodily  structure, 

—  we  need  expect  no  more  marked  changes  there, —  and  has 
gone  to  brain.     So  this  feeblest  of  all  the  animals  —  physi- 
cally speaking  he  would  be  no  match  for  a  hundred  different 
kinds   of   animals   that   are   about  us  —  is   able   to   outwit 
them  all,  that  is,  to  outknow, —  he  has  become  the  ruler 
of  the  earth.     And  not  only  has  this  evolutionary  force  gone 
to  brain,  it  has  gone  to  heart ;    and   man   has   become    a 
being  whose  primest  characteristic  is  love.     The  one  thing 
that  we  think  of  as  most  perfect,  that  we  dream  of  as  char- 
acterizing his   future   development,  is   summed   up   in   his 
affectional  nature.    Then,  too,  he  has  become  a  moral  being. 

There  are  times,  like  the  present,  when  it  seems  as  though 
the  animal  were  at  the  top,  and  the  affectional  nature  sup- 
pressed, and  the  conscience  were  ruled  out  of  court;  and 
yet,  if  you  study  the  methods  of  modern  warfare  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  the  past,  you  see  how  pity  and  tender- 
ness and  care  walk  by  the  side  of  every  gun,  hide  in  the 
rear  of  every  battlefield  to  attend  to  the  wounded  and 
suffering.  And  you  know  what  talk  there  has  been  of  pity 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  237 

for  the  hungry,  the  desire  of  the  world  to  feed  those  that 
need ;  and  the  one  dominant  note  in  the  discussion  of  the 
war  all  over  the  world  has  been  the  question  as  to  its  being 
right.  No  matter  how  we  may  have  decided,  whether  the 
decision  be  correct  or  not,  the  civilized  world  bows  itself  in 
the  presence  of  its  ideal  of  right,  and  demands  that  no  war 
shall  be  fought  the  issue  of  which  is  not  to  be  a  better  con- 
dition of  mankind. 

Evolution,  then,  tends  to  the  development  of  brain,  heart, 
conscience,  and  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  It  has  left 
nothing  behind  that  is  of  any  value  to  us.  It  has  trans- 
formed or  sublimed  or  lifted  all  up  into  the  higher  range 
of  the  life  that  we  are  living  to-day,  and  contains  within 
itself  a  promise  of  the  higher  and  the  grander  life  that 
we  reach  forward  to  to-morrow. 

I  wish  now,  for  a  moment,  to  illustrate  the  working  of 
this  in  regard  to  some  of  the  institutions  of  the  world.  If 
I  had  time,  I  could  show  you  that  the  same  law  is  apparent 
in  the  development  of  the  arts, —  sculpture,  painting,  poetry. 
I  must  pass  them  by,  however.  As  illustrating  what  I 
mean,  let  me  take  the  one  art  of  music.  From  the  very- 
beginning  man  has  been  interested  in  making  some  sort  of 
sounds  which,  I  suppose,  have  been  regarded  as  music  by 
him.  Most  of  those  that  are  associated  with  the  barbaric 
man  would  be  anything  but  music  to  us.  The  music,  for 
example,  that  they  give  in  connection  with  a  play  in  a 
Chinese  theatre  would  not  be  acceptable  to  the  cultivated 
ear  of  Americans.  We  have  left  behind  much  that  the 
world  called  music.  We  have  left  behind  any  number  of 
musical  instruments.  We  do  not  now  have  those  that  the 
Psalmist  makes  so  much  of, —  the  old-time  harp,  the  sackbut, 
the  psaltery.  I  do  not  know,  though  you  may,  what  kind 


238  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

of  instruments  they  were.  The  world  has  completely  for- 
gotten them,  and  left  them  out  of  sight.  And  yet  no  musi- 
cal note,  no  musical  chord,  no  musical  thought,  no  musical 
feeling,  has  been  forgotten  or  dropped  along  the  advancing 
pathway  of  the  world's  progress  ;  and  in  our  organs  all  the 
attempts  at  instruments  of  that  kind  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world  are  preserved,  transformed  and  glorified.  In 
our  magnificent  orchestras  all  the  first  feeble  beginnings  are 
developed  until  we  have  a  conception  of  music  to-day  such 
as  would  have  been  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the  prime- 
val man.  What  I  wish  you  to  note  is  —  and  this  is  the  use 
of  my  illustration — that  the  advancing  growth  of  the  music 
of  the  world  has  forgotten  nothing  that  it  was  worth  while  to 
keep. 

Let  me  give  you  one  more  illustration.  Take  it  in  the 
line  of  government.  The  first  tribes  were  governed  by  two 
forces,  brute  force  and  superstitious  fear.  These  were  the 
two  things  that  kept  the  primal  tribes  of  the  world  in  order, 
such  order  as  was  maintained  in  those  far-off  times.  The 
world  has  gone  on  developing  different  types  of  government, 
different  types  of  social  order.  I  need  not  stop  to  outline 
them  for  you  this  morning :  you  know  what  they  are ;  and 
I  only  wish  you  to  catch  the  thought  I  have  in  mind. 
I  suppose  that  every  time  one  of  the  old  types  was  about  to 
pass  away  the  adherents  of  that  type  have  been  in  a  panic 
lest  anarchy  was  threatening  the  world.  Believers  in  these 
types  have  said  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  keep 
them,  in  order  to  preserve  social  order.  Take  the  attitude 
of  the  monarchy  to-day,  for  example,  as  towards  the  repub- 
lic. When  we  attempted  to  establish  our  republic  here  in 
this  western  world,  it  was  freely  said  by  the  adherents  of 
the  old  political  idea  in  Europe  that  it  would  of  necessity 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  239 

be  a  failure,  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  a  stable  human 
order  without  a  hierarchy  of  nobles  with  a  king  at  the  top ; 
and  I  suppose  they  believed  it.  But  we  have  proved  be- 
yond question  that  we  can  have  a  strong  government,  an 
orderly  government,  without  either  nobility  or  king.  There 
is  less  government  in  the  United  States  here  to-day  than  in 
almost  any  other  country  of  the  world,  a  nearer  approach 
to  what  the  philosopher  would  call  anarchy.  Anarchy  does 
not  mean  disorder,  when  a  philosopher  is  talking :  it  means 
merely  the  absence  of  external  government.  And  that  is 
the  ideal  that  we  are  approaching. 

Paul  says,  you  know,  that  the  law  was  made  for  wicked 
people, —  for  the  disobedient  and  the  disorderly,  not  for  good 
people.  How  many  people  are  there  in  New  York  to-day, 
for  example,  who  are  honest,  who  pay  their  debts,  who  did 
not  commit  a  burglary  last  night,  who  do  not  propose  to 
be  false  to  wife  and  home,  on  account  of  the  law,  the  exist- 
ence of  courts  and  police  ?  The  great  majority  of  the  citi- 
zens of  America  to-day  would  go  right  on  being  honest  and 
kind  and  loving  and  helpful,  whether  there  were  any  laws  or 
not.  They  are  not  kept  to  these  courses  of  conduct  by  the 
law.  They  have  learned  that  these  are  the  fitting  ways  of 
life,  that  these  are  the  things  for  a  man  to  do ;  and  they  de- 
spise themselves  if  they  are  less  than  man.  In  other  words, 
this  governmental  order,  which  exists  as  an  outside  force,  at 
last  gets  written  in  the  heart  and  becomes  a  law  of  life. 

Now  precisely  the  same  process  is  going  on  in  other  de- 
partments of  the  world :  it  is  going  on  in  religion.  And 
now  let  me  come  to  religion,  and  illustrate  the  working 
of  the  law  here.  The  old  types  of  religious  thought  and 
life  and  practice,  the  first  ones  that  the  world  knew,  are 
long  since  outgrown.  \Ve  regard  them  as  barbaric,  as  cruel. 


240  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

We  have  learned  that  there  are  not  a  million  gods  of  whom 
we  need  stand  in  awe.  We  have  learned  that  God  is  no 
partial  God.  We  have  learned  that  God  does  not  want  us, 
as  universal  man  once  believed,  to  sacrifice  the  dearest  ob- 
ject of  our  love.  We  have  learned  that  he  does  not  want 
us  to  sacrifice  our  first-born  child,  as  the  old  Hebrews  used 
to,  and  the  remains  of  which  custom  are  plainly  visible 
throughout  the  Old  Testament  everywhere.  We  have  left 
behind  these  old  types  of  religious  thought  and  life ;  but 
the  world  has  lost  nothing  in  the  process.  The  world  has 
not  left  religion  behind.  The  whole  process  of  growth  and 
development  in  the  sphere  of  the  religious  life  and  the  de- 
velopment of  man  has  been  one  of  outgrowing  crude  and 
partial  and  inadequate  thoughts  and  feelings  about  the  uni- 
verse and  God  and  man  and  duty  and  destiny. 

We  do  not  care  so  much  about  ceremony  as  the  world 
did  once.  The  most  civilized  people  in  the  world  are  not  so 
given  to  these  things  in  their  religious  development.  We 
do  not  care  so  much  about  creed  as  they  did  a  thousand 
or  five  hundred  years  ago.  We  do  not  believe  that  God 
is  going  to  judge  us  by  our  intellectual  conceptions  of  him 
and  of  our  fellow-men.  And  I  suppose  it  is  true,  always 
has  been  true  as  it  is  to-day,  that  the  adherent  of  any  par- 
ticular form  or  theory  of  the  religious  life  has  the  feeling 
that,  when  that  is  threatened,  religion  is  threatened ;  and  he 
defends  it  passionately,  fights  for  it,  perhaps  bitterly,  feels 
justified  in  opposing,  perhaps  hating,  those  he  regards  as 
the  enemies  of  God  and  his  great  and  sacred  and  religious 
hopes.  And  yet  we  know,  as  we  study  the  past,  whether 
we  can  quite  appreciate  it  as  true  in  regard  to  the  theories 
which  I  am  voicing  to-day,  that  the  truth  has  never  been  in 
any  danger,  and  the  highest  and  finest  and  sweetest  things 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  241 

in  the  religious  life  have  never  been  in  any  danger,  are  not 
in  any  danger  to-day. 

Let  me  indicate  in  two  or  three  directions.  There  has 
been  a  class  of  thinkers,  which  has  done  a  good  deal  of  talk- 
ing and  writing  in  this  direction,  who  are  telling  us  that  the 
poetry,  the  romance,  the  wonder,  the  mystery,  of  the  world 
—  those  things  that  tend  to  bring  a  man  to  his  knees  and  to 
lift  his  eyes  in  awe  and  reverence  —  are  passing  away;  that 
science  is  going  to  explore  everything ;  that  there  is  going 
to  be  no  more  unknown ;  and  that,  when  we  have  completed 
this  process,  one  of  the  great  essentials  of  religious  thought 
and  feeling  and  life  will  have  perished  from  among  men.  I 
venture  to  say  to  you  that  there  has  never  been  a  time  in 
the  history  of  the  world  when  there  was  so  much  of  mystery, 
so  much  of  wonder,  so  much  of  reverence,  so  much  of  awe, 
as  there  is  to-day.  We  are  apt  to  fool  ourselves  in  our 
thinking,  and,  when  we  have  observed  a  fact,  and  labelled  it, 
to  think  we  know  it. 

For  example,  here  is  this  mysterious  force  that  we  call 
electricity,  which  is  flashing  such  light  in  our  homes  and 
through  our  streets  as  the  world  has  never  known  before. 
The  cars,  loaded,  are  speeding  along  our  highways  with  no 
visible  means  of  propulsion.  We  step  up  to  a  little  box,  and 
put  a  shell  to  our  ear,  and  speak  and  listen,  and  converse 
with  a  friend  in  Boston  or  Chicago,  recognizing  the  voice 
perfectly,  as  though  this  friend  were  by  our  side.  We  send 
a  message  over  a  wire,  under  the  deep,  and  talk  to  London 
and  all  round  the  globe ;  and  we  have  labelled  this  force 
electricity.  And,  instead  of  getting  down  on  our  knees  in 
reverence,  we  get  impatient  if  our  communication  is  delayed 
two  minutes  or  three.  We  fool  ourselves  with  the  thought 
that,  because  we  have  called  it  electricity,  we  know  it,  we 


242  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

have  taken  the  mystery  out  of  the  fact.  Why,  friends,  do 
you  know  anything  about  electricity  ?  Do  you  know  what  it 
is  ?  Do  you  know  why  it  works  as  it  does  ?  I  do  not ;  and 
I  do  not  know  of  anybody  on  the  face  of  the  earth  who 
does.  The  wonder  of  the  "  Arabian  Nights  "  is  cheap  and 
tame  and  theatrical  compared  to  the  wonder  of  this  every- 
day workaday  world  of  ours,  in  the  midst  of  which  and  by 
means  of  which  we  are  carrying  on  our  business  and  our 
daily  avocations.  The  wonder  of  the  carpet  that  would 
carry  the  person  through  the  air  who  sat  upon  it  and  wished 
is  nothing  compared  with  the  power  of  electricity,  steam, 
any  one  of  these  invisible,  intangible  powers  that  are  thrill- 
ing through  the  world  to-day.  There  never  was  so  much 
room  for  mystery,  for  awe,  for  poetry,  for  romance,  as  there 
is  in  the  midst  of  our  commercial  life  in  this  nineteenth 
century. 

This  element  of  religion,  then,  is  in  no  danger.  We  know 
nothing  ultimately.  Who  can  tell  me  what  a  particle  of 
matter  is  ?  Who  can  tell  me  what  a  ray  of  light  is,  as  it 
comes  from  a  star  ?  Who  can  tell  me  how  the  movements  in 
the  particles  of  air  striking  my  eye  run  up  into  nerve  and 
brain,  and  become  translated  into  thought,  into  light,  into 
form,  into  motion,  into  all  this  wondrous  universe  that  sur- 
rounds us  on  every  hand  ? 

Then  take  the  element  of  trust.  People  used  to  think 
they  could  trust  in  their  gods.  Rebecca,  for  example,  stole 
her  father's  gods,  and  hid  them  in  the  trappings  of  her 
camel,  and  sat  on  them.  She  thought,  then,  that  she  had  a 
god  near  her  who  would  care  for  her.  The  old  Hebrew,  with 
an  ox-team,  carried  his  God,  in  a  box  that  he  called  the  ark, 
into  battle,  and  supposed  that  he  had  a  very  present  help  in 
time  of  need.  But  we  have  the  eternal  stability  and  order 


Evolution  Loses  Not/ting  243 

of  the  universe,  a  God  that  never  forgets,  a  God  on  whom 
we  can  lean,  in  whom  we  can  trust,  who  is  not  away  off  in 
heaven,  but  here,  closer  to  us  than  the  air  we  breathe, —  a 
God  in  whom  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being. 

And  has  this  evolution  of  the  religious  life  of  the  world 
threatened  the  stability  of  truth  ?  There  never  was  a  time 
on  earth  when  there  was  such  a  passion  for  truth  as  there  is 
to-day.  What  means  all  this  intense  activity  of  the  scien- 
tific world  ?  —  these  men  that  devote  their  lives  to  some 
little  fraction  of  the  universe  which  they  study  through  their 
microscope, —  not  for  pay, —  to  find  one  little  fragment  of 
the  truth  of  God ;  these  critics  that  are  rummaging  the 
dust-heaps  of  the  ages  in  the  hope  that  they  may  find  one 
little,  bright-glittering  particle  of  truth  in  the  midst  of  the 
rubbish  ?  There  never  was  such  a  passion  for  truth  as  there 
is  here  and  now. 

Are  we  going  to  lose  the  sense  of  righteousness  which  is 
the  very  heart  of  religion  ?  There  never  was  a  time  since 
the  world  began  when  the  average  man  cared  so  much  for 
righteousness,  when  he  laid  so  much  emphasis  on  human 
conduct,  on  kindness,  on  help,  on  all  those  things  that 
make  this  life  of  ours  desirable  and  sweet.  The  ideal  of 
character  and  behavior  has  risen  step  by  step  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  is  higher  to-day  than  it  ever  was  before.  Not 
because  men  fear  a  whipping,  not  because  they  are  threatened 
with  hell  in  another  world,  not  because  a  God  of  vengeance  is 
preached  to  them, —  because  they  have  grown  to  see  the 
beauty  of  righteousness,  because  they  know  that  obedience  to 
the  laws  of  God  means  health,  means  sanity,  means  peace, 
means  prosperity,  means  well-being,  means  all  high  and 
good  and  noble  things.  This  righteousness  is  not  driven 
into  one  by  blows  from  outside :  it  blossoms  out  from  the 


244  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

intellect  and  the  conscience  and  the  heart,  as  the  recognized 
law  of  all  fine  and  desirable  and  human  living. 

What  are  we  losing,  then,  as  the  result  of  this  growth  of 
the  world  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  evolution  ?  Are  we 
losing  our  hope  of  the  future  ?  The  form  of  that  hope  is 
passing  away.  We  no  longer  believe  in  an  underground 
world  of  the  dead,  as  the  Hebrews  did.  We  no  longer  be- 
lieve in  a  heaven  just  above  the  blue,  as  Christendom  has 
believed  for  so  long.  We  no  longer  believe  in  a  heaven 
where  all  struggle  and  thought  and  study  and  growth  are 
left  out,  where  there  is  to  be  only  a  monotonous  enjoyment 
that  would  pall  upon  any  living  rational  soul.  The  form  of 
it  is  passing  away ;  but  there  never  was  a  time  when  there 
was  such  a  great  and  inspiring  hope,  not  simply  for  myself 
and  my  friends,  not  simply  for  my  neighbors,  not  simply  for 
my  particular  church.  There  never  was  a  time  when  there 
was  such  a  great  hope,  including  humanity  for  this  world  and 
for  the  next,  as  that  which  inspires  us  now. 

Nothing,  then,  in  religion  that  is  of  any  worth  has  the 
world  forgotten  or  is  it  likely  to  forget.  All  the  old  rever- 
ences and  loves  and  trusts  and  inspirations  and  hopes  and 
tendernesses  are  here  intermingled.  They  are  in  the  highest 
and  noblest  people  ;  and  they  are  being  carried  on  and  re- 
fined and  purified  and  glorified  as  the  world  goes  on. 

And  now  let  me  suggest  one  thought  more  that  may  be 
of  comfort  to  some.  A  great  many  people  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  associate  so  much  of  their  religion  with  the  forms 
of  their  religious  expression  that  they  fancy  that  the  world's 
outgrowing  these  means  that  religion  is  being  outgrown.  I 
said,  you  remember,  when  touching  upon  government  as  an 
illustration  of  the  working  of  the  law  of  evolution,  that  gov- 
ernmental forms  were  being  outgrown  just  as  fast  as  the 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  245 

world  was  becoming  civilized.  If  this  world  ever  becomes 
perfect,  government  will  cease  to  be,  in  the  sense  of  these 
external  forms,  simply  because  there  will  be  no  need  of  it; 
just  as  you  take  down  a  staging  when  you  have  completed  a 
house.  So  I  look  forward  to  less  and  less  care  for  the  ex- 
ternal forms  of  the  religious  life.  I  believe  they  will  remain, 
and  they  ought  to  remain,  just  as  long  as  they  are  any  prac- 
tical help  to  anybody ;  but,  because  a  person  ceases  to  need 
them,  you  must  not  think  that  he  has  ceased  to  be  religious. 
When  the  world  gets  to  be  perfectly  religious,  there  will  be 
no  need  of  any  churches,  there  will  be  no  need  any  more  of 
preachers,  there  will  be  no  need  of  any  of  the  external  cere- 
mony of  religion.  You  remember  what  the  old  seer  says  in 
the  book  of  Revelation,  as  he  looks  forward  to  the  perfect 
condition  of  things.  He  is  picturing  that  ideal  city  which 
he  saw  in  his  vision  coming  down  from  God  out  of  heaven. 
This  was  his  poetical  way  of  setting  forth  his  idea  of  the 
perfected  condition  of  humanity ;  and  he  said,  speaking  of 
that  city,  "  And  I  saw  no  temple  therein,  for  the  Lord  God 
was  the  temple  of  it." 

The  external  forms  pass  away  when  the  life  needs  them 
no  more.  Take,  for  example,  the  condition  of  things  when 
Jesus  came  to  Jerusalem.  You  know  how  they  put  him  to 
death.  And  what  did  they  put  him  to  death  for  ?  They 
put  him  to  death  because  he  preached  of  a  time  when  there 
would  be  no  need  of  any  temple,  no  need  of  any  priesthood, 
no  need  of  any  of  the  external  things  that  they  regarded  as 
essential  to  religious  life.  They  thought  he  was  blasphem- 
ing, they  thought  he  was  an  enemy  of  God  and  of  his  fellow- 
men,  because  he  talked  that  way.  He  said  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  You  think  you  must  worship  God  on  this  moun- 
tain, Gerizim,  and  the  Jews  think  they  must  worship  him  on 


246  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

Mount  Moriah ;  but  God  is  spirit,  and  the  time  will  come 
when  you  will  not  care  whether  you  are  in  this  place  or 
that,  but  will  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

You  see  it  was  just  along  these  lines  that  Jesus  was 
preaching  and  working  in  his  day.  So,  when  humanity 
becomes  perfected,  external  forms,  that  have  helped  mould 
and  shape  man  into  his  perfection,  will  be  needed  no  more. 
They  will  fall  off,  pass  away,  and  be  forgotten ;  but  that  will 
not  mean  that  humanity  has  forgotten  or  left  behind  any 
great  essential  to  the  religious  life.  It  will  mean  simply 
that  he  has  taken  them  up  into  his  own  heart,  absorbed 
them  into  his  life.  He  naturally  drops  them  when  he  is  no 
longer  in  need  of  external  supports. 

This  law  of  evolution,  then,  is  simply  the  method  of  God's 
progress  from  the  beginning, —  the  same  method  which  was 
to  be  found  in  the  lowest,  the  method  which  has  lifted  us  to 
where  we  are,  the  method  which  looks  out  with  promise 
towards  the  better  things  which  are  to  come. 


The  one  life  thrilled  the  star-dust  through, 

In  nebulous  masses  whirled, 
Until,  globed  like  a  drop  of  dew, 

Shone  out  a  new-made  world. 

The  one  life  on  the  ocean  shore, 
Through  primal  ooze  and  slime, 

Crept  slowly  on  from  less  to  more 
Along  the  ways  of  time. 

The  one  life  in  the  jungles  old, 

From  lowly  creeping  things, 
Did  ever  some  new  form  unfold, — 

Swift  feet  or  soaring  wings. 


Evolution  Loses  Nothing  247 

The  one  life  all  the  ages  through 

Pursued  its  wondrous  plan 
Till,  as  the  tree  of  promise  grew, 

It  blossomed  into  man. 


The  one  life  reacheth  onward  still ; 

As  yet  no  eye  may  see 
The  far-off  fact,  man's  dream  fulfill  — 

The  glory  yet  to  be. 


WHY   ARE    NOT   ALL    EDUCATED 
PEOPLE    UNITARIANS? 


THE  religious  opinions  of  the  average  person  in  any  com- 
munity do  not  count  for  much,  if  any  one  is  studying  them 
with  the  endeavor  to  find  out  their  bearing  on  what  is  true 
or  what  is  false.  This  is  true  not  only  of  popular  religious 
opinions,  but  of  any  other  set  of  opinions  whatever ;  and  for 
the  simple  reason  that  most  people  do  not  hold  their  opin- 
ions as  the  result  of  any  study,  of  any  investigation,  be- 
cause they  have  seriously  tried  to  find  out  what  is  true,  and 
have  become  convinced  that  this,  and  not  that,  represents 
the  reality  of  things. 

Let  us  note  for  a  moment  —  and  I  do  this  rather  to  clear 
the  way  than  because  I  consider  it  of  any  very  great  impor- 
tance—  how  it  is  that  the  great  majority  of  people  come  by 
the  religious  opinions  which  they  happen  to  hold.  I  sup- 
pose it  is  true  in  thousands  of  cases  that  a  man  or  a  woman 
is  in  this  church  rather  than  that  merely  as  the  result  of 
inheritance  and  childhood  training.  People  inherit  their  re- 
ligious ideas.  They  are  taught  certain  things  in  their  child- 
hood, they  have  accepted  them  perhaps  without  any  sort  of 
question ;  and  so  they  are  where  they  happen  to  be  to-day. 
If  you  stop  and  think  of  it  for  just  a  moment,  you  will  see 
that  this  may  be  all  right  as  a  starting-point,  but  is  not  quite 
an  adequate  reason  why  we  should  hold  permanently,  and 
throughout  our  lives,  a  particular  set  of  ideas.  If  all  of  us 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?    249 

were  to  accept  opinions  in  this  sort  of  fashion,  and  never 
put  them  behind  us  or  make  any  change,  where  would  the 
growth  of  the  world  be  ?  How  would  it  be  possible  for  one 
generation  to  make  a  little  advance  on  that  which  preceded 
it,  so  that  we  could  speak  of  the  progress  of  mankind? 
Then,  when  persons  do  make  up  their  minds  to  change,  to 
leave  one  church  and  go  to  another,  it  is  not  an  uncommon 
thing  for  them  simply  to  select  a  particular  place  of  worship 
or  a  special  organization  for  no  better  reason  than  that  they 
happen  to  like  it,  to  be  attracted  to  it  for  some  superficial 
cause.  How  many  people  who  do  leave  one  church  for 
another  do  it  as  the  result  of  any  earnest  study,  or  real 
endeavor  to  find  the  truth?  And  yet,  if  you  will  give 
the  matter  a  moment's  serious  consideration,  you  will  see 
that  we  have  no  sort  of  right  to  choose  one  theory  rather 
than  another,  one  set  of  ideas  rather  than  another,  because 
we  happen  to  like  one  thing,  and  not  something  else.  Lik- 
ing or  disliking,  a  superficial  preference  or  aversion,  is  an 
impertinence  when  dealing  with  these  great,  high,  and  deep 
questions  of  God  and  the  soul,  of  the  true  or  the  false. 

Then  I  have  known  a  great  many  people  in  my  life  who 
went  to  a  particular  church  for  no  better  reason  than  mere 
convenience.  It  was  easily  accessible,  it  was  just  around 
the  corner,  they  did  not  have  to  make  any  long  journey,  and 
did  not  have  to  put  themselves  out  any  to  get  up  a  little 
earlier  on  Sunday  morning,  which  they  would  otherwise 
need  to  do.  A  mere  matter  of  convenience !  And  this  is 
so  many  times  allowed  to  settle  some  great  question  of  right 
or  wrong.  Then  you  will  find  those  who  select  a  particular 
church  or  a  particular  church  organization,  become  identi- 
fied with  it,  merely  because  on  a  casual  visit  to  the  place 
they  were  taken  with  the  minister,  happened  to  like  his  ap- 


250  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

pearance,  his  method  of  speaking,  the  way  he  presented  his 
ideas.  Or  perhaps  they  were  attracted  by  the  music. 
There  are  persons  who  decide  these  great  questions  of  God 
and  truth  and  the  soul  for  no  more  important  a  reason  than 
the  organization  and  the  capacity  of  the  church  choir. 

It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  people  to  attend  some 
particular  church  because  it  promises  to  be  socially  advan- 
tageous to  them.  It  is  fashionable  in  a  particular  town.  I 
have  a  friend, —  I  still  call  him  friend, —  a  Boston  lawyer, — 
who  told  me  in  conversation  about  this  subject  one  day  that 
he  deliberately  went  to  the  largest  church  he  could  find, 
and  that,  if  in  the  particular  city  in  which  he  was  residing  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  was  in  the  majority,  he  should  at- 
tend that.  There  are  thousands  of  persons  who  wish  to  be 
in  the  swim,  and  who  are  diverted  this  way  or  that  by  what 
seems  to  them  socially  profitable.  Think  of  it,  claiming  to 
be  followers  of  the  Nazarene,  who  was  outcast,  spit  upon, 
treated  with  contempt,  on  whom  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
of  his  day  looked  down  with  bitterness  and  scorn,  and  who 
led  the  world  for  the  sake  of  his  love  for  God  out  into  a 
larger  truth,  who  made  himself  of  no  reputation, —  claim  to 
be  followers  of  him,  and  let  a  matter  of  fashion  decide 
whether  they  will  go  this  way  or  walk  in  some  other  path ! 
Think  of  the  irony  of  a  situation  like  that ! 

Then,  again,  there  are  those  who  attach  themselves  to 
some  one  church  rather  than  to  another  because,  after 
looking  over  the  ground,  they  made  up  their  minds  that  it 
would  be  to  their  business  advantage.  They  will  become 
associated  with  a  set  of  people  who  can  help  them  on  in  the 
world.  It  is  all  very  well,  if  there  be  no  higher  consider- 
ation, for  a  person  to  be  governed  in  his  action  by  motives 
like  these ;  but  is  it  quite  right  to  decide  a  question  of  truth 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?    251 

or  falsehood,  of  God  or  duty,  of  the  consecration  of  the 
human  soul,  of  the  service  of  one's  fellow-men,  on  the  basis 
of  supposed  financial  advantage?  There  is  hardly  a  year 
goes  by  that  persons  do  not  come  to  me,  considering  the 
question  as  to  whether  they  will  attend  my  church.  I  can 
see  in  a  few  minutes'  conversation  with  them  that  they  have 
some  purpose  to  gain.  They  wish  to  be  helped  on  in  the 
prosecution  of  some  scheme  for  their  own  advancement.  If 
they  succeed,  they  are  devout  Unitarians  and  loyal  followers 
of  mine.  If  not,  within  a  few  weeks  I  hear  of  them  as  de- 
voted attendants  somewhere  else,  where  they  have  been  able 
to  make  their  personal  plans  a  success. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  —  there  are  worthier  ones 
than  these  —  which  influence  the  crowd.  There  are,  I  say, 
worthier  ones.  Let  me  hint  one  or  two.  I  do  not  think  it 
is  any  sacrilege,  or  betrayal  of  confidence,  for  me  to  speak 
a  name.  The  late  Frances  E.  Willard,  one  of  the  ablest, 
truest,  most  devoted  women  I  have  ever  known,  frankly 
confessed  to  me  in  personal  conversation  that  she  was  more 
in  sympathy  with  my  religious  ideas  than  of  those  of  the 
Church  with  which  she  was  connected,  but  her  love,  her 
tender  love  and  reverence  for  her  mother  and  the  memory 
of  her  mother's  religion  were  such  that  she  could  not  find 
it  in  her  heart  to  break  away.  She  loved  the  services  her 
mother  loved,  she  loved  the  hymns  her  mother  sung,  she 
loved  the  associations  connected  with  her  mother's  life. 
All  sweet,  beautiful,  noble ;  but,  if  nobody  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  world  had  ever  advanced  beyond  mothers' 
ideas  where  should  we  be  to-day  ?  Is  it  not,  after  all,  the 
truest  reverence  for  mother,  in  the  spirit  of  consecration 
she  showed  to  follow  the  truth  as  you  see  it  to-day,  as  she 
followed  it  as  she  saw  it  yesterday  ? 


252  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

So  much  to  justify  the  statement  I  made,  that  the  average 
popular  belief  on  any  subject  is  not  a  reliable  guide  to  a 
person  who  is  earnestly  desiring  to  find  the  simple  truth. 

Now  let  us  come  to  the  answer  of  the  specific  question 
which  I  have  propounded.  Why  are  not  all  educated 
people  Unitarians  ?  I  ask  this  question,  not  because  I 
originated  it,  but  because  it  has  been  put  to  me,  I  suppose, 
a  hundred  times.  People  say,  You  claim  to  have  studied 
these  matters  very  carefully,  you  have  tried  to  find  the 
truth,  you  think  you  have  found  it.  You  have  followed  what 
you  regard  as  the  true  method  of  search.  If  you  have  found 
the  truth,  and  if  other  people,  using  this  same  method  and 
being  as  unbiassed  as  you,  could  also  find  it,  how  does  it 
happen  that  Unitarians  are  in  the  minority  ?  Why  do  not 
all  persons  who  study  and  who  are  educated  accept  the 
Unitarian  faith  ?  This  question,  I  say,  has  been  asked  me 
a  great  many  times  ;  and  it  is  a  question  that  deserves  a  fair, 
an  earnest  and  sympathetic  answer.  Such  an  answer  I  am 
now  to  try  to  give. 

In  the  first  place,  let  me  make  a  few  assertions.  I  have 
not  time  to  prove  them  this  morning ;  but  they  are  capable 
of  proof.  The  advantage  of  a  scientific  statement  is  that, 
though  you  do  not  stop  to  prove  it,  you  know  it  can  be 
proved  any  time,  whenever  a  person  chooses  to  take  the 
time  or  trouble.  For  example,  if  I  state  the  truth  of  the 
Copernican  system,  or  that  the  earth  revolves  around  the 
sun,  and  you  challenge  me  to  prove  it  in  two  minutes,  I 
may  not  be  able  to;  it  may  take  longer  than  that;  but  I 
know  it  can  be  demonstrated  to-morrow  or  next  week  or 
any  time,  because  it  has  been  demonstrated  over  and  over 
again.  , 

I  wish  now  to  assert  the  truth  of  certain  fundamental 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  f    253 

principles ;  and  these  principles,  you  note,  are  those  which 
constitute  the  peculiarity  of  the  Unitarian  people  as  a 
body  of  theological  believers.  For  example,  that  this  which 
is  all  around  us  and  of  which  we  are  a  part  is  a  universe  is 
demonstrated  beyond  question.  It  is  one, —  the  unity  of  the 
universe.  The  unity  of  force,  the  unity  of  substance  or 
matter,  the  unity  of  law,  the  unity  of  life,  the  unity  of 
humanity,  the  unity  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  ethics, 
the  unity  of  the  religious  life  and  aspiration  of  the  world, — 
these,  I  say,  are  demonstrated.  And  do  you  not  see  that 
demonstrating  these  carries  along  with  it  the  unquestioned, 
the  absolute  demonstration  of  the  unity  of  the  power  that  is 
in  the  universe  and  manifests  itself  through  it  ?  The  unity  of 
God — "  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  !  "  And  this  is  no  question 
of  speculation,  it  is  demonstrated  truth.  Now,  as  to  any 
speculative  or  metaphysical  division  of  God's  nature  into 
three  parts  or  personalities,  there  is  not,  and  there  cannot 
be,  in  the  nature  of  things,  one  slightest  particle  of  proof. 
The  unity  is  demonstrated :  anything  else  is  incapable  of 
demonstration. 

Next,  the  Unitarian  contention  —  I  say  Unitarian,  not  be- 
cause we  originated  it  by  any  means,  but  simply  because 
we  first  and  chiefly  among  religious  bodies  have  accepted  it 
—  as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  man  as  science  has  un- 
folded it  to  us,  thus  precluding  the  possibility  of  the  truth 
of  any  doctrine  of  any  fall.  This  is  not  speculation,  it  is 
not  whim.  It  is  not  something  picked  up  by  the  way,  that  a 
man  chooses  because  he  likes  it,  and  because  he  does  not 
like  something  else.  This  is  demonstrated  truth,  as  clearly 
and  fully  demonstrated  as  is  the  law  of  gravity  or  the  fact 
that  water  will  freeze  at  a  certain  temperature.  Then  the 
question  of  the  Bible.  The  Unitarian  position  in  regard 


254  O*tr  Unitarian  Gospel 

to  the  origin,  the  method  of  composition,  the  authenticity 
and  the  authority  of  Biblical  books,  is  a  commonplace  of 
scholarship.  There  is  no  rational  question  in  regard  to  it 
any  more.  Next,  the  question  of  the  origin  and  nature  of 
Jesus  the  Christ.  The  naturalness  of  his  birth,  the  natural- 
ness of  his  death,  his  pure  humanity,  are  made  clearer  and 
surer  by  every  new  step  which  investigation  takes ;  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  proof  that  is  conceivable 
in  regard  to  any  other  theory.  If  any  one  chooses  to  ac- 
cept it,  well ;  but  nobody  claims,  or  can  claim,  to  prove  it, 
to  settle  it,  to  demonstrate  it  as  true.  It  becomes  an  ar- 
ticle of  faith,  a  question  of  voluntary  belief ;  but  there  is  no 
possibility  of  holding  it  in  any  other  way.  So  as  to  the 
nature  of  salvation.  It  is  a  matter  of  character  ;  a  man 
is  saved  when  he  is  right.  And  that  he  cannot  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  is  demonstrable  and  demonstrated  truth. 

Now,  these  are  the  main  principles  which  constitute  the 
beliefs  of  Unitarians ;  and  in  any  court  of  reason  they  are 
able  to  make  good  their  claim  against  any  comer.  And,  if 
there  be  no  other  motive  at  work  except  the  one  clear-eyed, 
simple  desire  to  find  the  truth,  there  can  be  no  two  opin- 
ions concerning  any  of  them. 

Why,  then,  are  not  all  thoughtful,  educated  people  Uni- 
tarians ?  Well  may  the  listener  ask,  in  wonder,  if  the  state- 
ments I  have  just  been  making  are  true.  Now  I  propose 
to  offer  some  suggestions,  showing  what  are  some  of  the 
influences  at  work  which  determine  belief,  and  which  have 
very  little  to  do  with  the  question  as  to  whether  the  beliefs 
are  capable  of  establishing  themselves  as  true  or  not. 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  raise  the  question  as  to  what  is 
generally  meant  by  education.  We  assume  that  all  edu- 
cated people  ought  to  agree  on  all  great  questions ;  and 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?    255 

they  ought, —  note  now  what  I  am  saying, —  they  ought,  if 
they  are  really  and  truly  educated,  and  if  with  a  clear  and 
single  eye  they  are  seeking  simply  the  truth.  But,  in  order 
to  understand  the  situation,  we  need  to  note  a  good  many 
other  things  that  enter  into  this  matter  of  determining  the 
religious  path  in  which  people  will  walk.  Now  what  do  we 
mean  by  education  ?  Popularly,  if  a  man  has  been  to 
school,  particularly  if  he  is  a  college  graduate,  if  he  can 
read  a  little  Latin  and  speak  French,  and  knows  something 
of  music,  if  he  has  graduated  anywhere,  he  is  spoken  of  as 
educated.  But  is  that  a  correct  use  of  language  ?  Are  we 
sure  that  a  man  is  educated  merely  because  he  knows  a  lot 
of  things  or  has  been  through  a  particular  course  of  study  ? 
What  does  a  human  education  mean  ?  Does  it  not  mean  the 
unfolding,  the  development  of  our  faculties  in  such  a  way 
that  in  the  intellectual  sphere  we  can  come  into  contact 
with  and  possession  of  the  reality  of  things,  the  truth  ?  In- 
tellectually, is  there  any  other  object  of  education  than  to 
fit  a  man  to  find  the  truth  ?  And  yet  let  me  give  you  a 
case.  Here  is  a  man, —  I  take  it  as  an  illustration  simply, 
not  because  I  have  anything  particular  against  the  Catholic 
Church  any  more  than  against  any  other  body  of  believers, 
—  who  has  been  through  a  Catholic  college,  has  made  him- 
self master  of  Catholic  doctrine,  become  familiar  with  theo- 
logical and  ecclesiastical  literature;  suppose  he  knows  all 
the  languages,  or  a  dozen  of  them,  having  them  at  his  fin- 
gers' ends.  Do  you  not  see  that  as  a  truth-seeker  in  a  free 
world  he  may  not  be  educated  at  all  ?  He  may  be  edu- 
cated, as  we  say, —  or  trained  is  the  better  word, —  into  ac- 
ceptance of  a  certain  system  of  traditional  thought,  that  can 
give  no  good  reason  for  itself ;  for  his  prejudices,  his  loves 
and  hates  may  be  called  into  play.  He  may  be  trained  into 


256  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

the  earnest  conviction  that  it  is  his  highest  duty  to  be  loyal 
to  a  particular  set  of  ideas. 

Take  the  way  I  was  educated.  I  grew  up  reading  the 
denominational  reviews,  and  the  denominational  newspapers. 
I  was  taught  that  it  was  dangerous  and  wicked  to  doubt.  I 
must  not  think  freely :  that  was  the  one  thing  I  was  not 
permitted  to  do.  I  went  to  a  theological  school,  and  had 
drilled  into  me  year  after  year  that  such  beliefs,  about  God 
and  man  and  Jesus  and  the  Bible  and  the  future  world,  were 
unquestionably  true,  and  that  I  must  not  look  at  anything 
that  would  throw  a  doubt  upon  them.  And  I  was  sent  out 
into  the  world  graduated, —  not  as  a  truth-seeker,  but  to 
fight  for  my  system,  as  a  West  Point  graduate  is  taught  that 
he  must  fight  for  his  country  without  asking  any  questions. 

Do  you  not  see  that  this,  which  goes  under  the  name  of 
education,  instead  of  fitting  a  man  to  find  the  truth,  may  dis- 
tinctly and  definitely  unfit  him,  make  it  harder  for  him  to 
find  any  truth  except  that  which  is  contained  in  the  system 
which  has  been  drilled  into  him  from  his  childhood  up  and 
year  after  year  ?  Education,  in  order  to  fit  a  man  to  be  a 
truth-seeker,  must  be  something  different  from  this  merely 
teaching  a  man  a  certain  system,  a  certain  set  of  ideas, 
and  drilling  him  into  the  belief  that  he  must  defend  these 
ideas  against  all  comers. 

A  good  many  people,  then,  who  are  called  educated,  are 
not  educated  at  all.  I  have  had  this  question  asked  me 
repeatedly  :  If  your  position  is  true,  here  is  a  college  gradu- 
ate, and  here  is  another ;  and  here  is  a  minister  of  such 
a  denomination,  or  a  priest  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  why  do 
they  not  accept  your  ideas  ?  Do  you  not  see,  however,  that 
this  so-called  education  may  stand  squarely  in  the  way  ? 

Now,  in  the  second  place,  I  want  to  dwell  a  little  on  the 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?   257 

difficulty  of  people's  getting  rid  of  a  theory  which  possesses 
their  minds,  and  substituting  for  it  another  theory.  And  I 
wish  you  to  note  that  it  is  not  a  religious  difficulty  nor  a 
theological  difficulty  nor  a  Baptist  difficulty  nor  a  Presby- 
terian difficulty  :  it  is  a  human  difficulty.  There  is  no  body 
of  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  is  large  enough  to 
contain  all  the  world's  bigotry.  It  overflows  all  fences  and 
gets  into  all  enclosures.  Discussing  the  subject  a  little 
while  ago,  by  correspondence  with  a  prominent  scientific 
man  in  New  England,  I  got  from  him  the  illustrations  which 
I  hold  in  my  hand,  tending  to  set  forth  how  difficult  it  is  for 
scientific  men  themselves  to  get  rid  of  a  theory  which  they 
have  been  working  for  and  trying  to  prove,  and  substi- 
tute for  it  another  theory.  I  imagine  that  there  may  be  a 
physiological  basis  for  the  difficulty.  I  suggest  it,  at  any 
rate.  We  say  that  the  mind  tends  to  run  in  grooves  of 
thought.  That  means,  I  suppose,  that  there  is  something  in 
the  molecular  movements  of  the  brain  that  comes  to  corre- 
spond to  a  well-trodden  pathway.  It  is  easy  to  walk  that 
path,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  get  out  of  it.  Let  it  rain  on  the 
top  of  a  hill ;  and,  if  you  watch  the  water,  you  will  see  that 
it  seeks  little  grooves  that  have  been  worn  there  by  the  fall- 
ing of  past  rains,  and  that  the  little  streams  obey  the  sci- 
entific law  and  follow  the  lines  of  least  resistance.  There 
comes  a  big  shower,  a  heavy  downfall ;  and  perhaps  it  will 
wash  away  the  surface  and  change  the  beds  of  these  old 
watercourses, —  create  new  ones.  So,  then,  when  there 
comes  a  deluge  of  new  truth,  it  washes  away  the  ruts  along 
which  people  have  been  accustomed  to  think ;  and  they  are 
able  to  reconstruct  their  theories. 

Now  let  me  give  you  some  of  these  scientific  illustrations. 
First,   that   heat  is   a  mode  of  motion  was  proved  by  Sir 


258  Otir  Unitarian  Gospel 

Humphry  Davy  and  Count  Rumford  before  1820.  In 
1842  Joule,  of  Manchester,  England,  proved  the  quantitative 
relation  between  mechanical  energy  and  heat.  In  1863  — 
note  the  dates  —  Tyndall  gave  a  course  of  lectures  on  heat 
as  a  mode  of  motion,  and  was  even  then  sneered  at  by  some 
scientific  men  for  his  temerity.  Tait,  of  Glasgow,  was  par- 
ticularly obstreperous.  To-day  nobody  questions  it;  and 
\ve  go  back  to  Sir  Humphry  Davy  and  Count  Rumford  for 
our  proofs,  too.  It  was  proved  —  scientifically  proved  — 
then ;  but  it  took  the  world  all  these  years,  even  the  sci- 
entific world,  to  get  rid  of  its  prejudices  in  favor  of  some 
other  theory,  and  see  the  force  of  the  proof. 

Now,  in  the  second  place,  it  was  held  originally  that  light 
was  a  series  of  corpuscles  that  flew  off  from  a  heated  sur- 
face ;  but  Thomas  Young,  about  the  year  1801,  demonstrated 
the  present  accepted  theory  of  light.  But  it  was  fought  for 
years.  Only  after  a  long  time  did  the  scientific  world  give 
up  its  prejudice  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  was  propounded 
by  Newton.  But  to-day  we  go  back  to  Young,  and  see  that 
he  demonstrated  it  beyond  question. 

In  the  third  place,  take  another  fact.  Between  1830  and 
1845  Faraday  worked  out  a  theory  of  electrical  and  mag- 
netic phenomena.  It  was  proved  to  be  correct.  Maxwell, 
a  famous  chemist  in  London,  looked  over  the  matter,  and 
persuaded  himself  that  Faraday  was  right ;  but  nobody  paid 
much  attention  to  either  of  them ;  until  after  a  while  the  sci- 
entific world,  through  the  work  of  its  younger  men, —  those 
least  wedded  to  the  old-time  beliefs, —  conceded  that  it  must 
be  true. 

The  Nebular  Theory  was  proved  and  worked  oui  by  Kant 
more  than  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  ago.  In  1799  Laplace 
worked  it  out  again ;  but  it  was  a  long  time  before  it  was 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?   259 

accepted.  And  now  we  go  back  to  Kant  and  Laplace  for 
our  demonstration. 

Darwin's  "Origin  of  Species"  was  published  in  1859. 
But  it  was  attacked  by  scientists  as  well  as  theologians  on 
every  hand.  Huxley  even  looked  at  it  with  a  good  deal  of 
hesitancy  before  he  accepted  it.  To-day,  however,  every- 
body goes  back  to  the  "Origin  of  Species,"  and  finds  the 
whole  thing  there,  demonstration  and  all. 

Lyell  published  a  book  on  the  antiquity  of  man  in  1863. 
It  was  twenty-five  years  before  all  the  scientific  men  of  the 
world  were  ready  to  give  up  the  idea  that  man  had  been 
on  the  earth  more  than  six  or  eight  thousand  years. 

So  we  find  that  it  is  not  theologians  only ;  it  is  scientists, 
too,  that  find  it  difficult  to  accept  new  ideas.  I  know  scien- 
tific men  among  my  personal  friends  who  are  simply  inca- 
pable of  being  hospitable  to  an  idea  that  would  compel  them 
to  reconstruct  a  theory  that  they  have  already  accepted. 
Why  are  not  all  educated  men  Unitarians  ?  Why  do  not 
scientific  men  accept  demonstrated  truth  when  it  is  first 
demonstrated  as  truth  ?  It  puts  them  to  too  much  trouble. 
It  touches  their  pride.  They  do  not  like  to  feel  that  they 
have  thrown  away  half  their  lives  following  an  hypothesis 
that  is  not  capable  of  being  substantiated. 

Then,  in  the  third  place,  there  are  men,  and  educated  men 
as  the  world  goes,  who  deliberately  decline  to  study  new 
truth ;  and  they  are  men  in  the  scientific  field  and  in  the 
religious  field.  They  purposely  refuse  to  look  at  anything 
which  would  tend  to  disturb  their  present  accepted  befief. 
In  my  boyhood  I  used  to  hear  Dr.  John  O.  Fiske,  a  fa- 
mous preacher  in  Maine.  He  told  a  friend  of  mine,  in  his 
old  age,  that  he  simply  refused  to  read  any  book  that  would 
tend  to  disturb  his  beliefs.  Professor  William  G.  T.  Shedd, 


260  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

one  of  the  most  distinguished  theologians  of  this  country,  a 
leading  Presbyterian  divine,  published  —  so  I  am  not  slan- 
dering him  by  saying  it  —  a  statement  that  he  did  not  con- 
sider any  book  written  since  the  seventeenth  century  worth 
his  reading.  And  yet  we  have  a  new  world  since  the  seven- 
teenth century,  a  new  revelation  of  God  and  of  man.  To 
follow  the  teaching  of  the  seventeenth  century  would  be  to 
go  wrong  in  almost  every  conceivable  direction.  What  is 
the  use  of  paying  any  attention  to  the  theological  or  relig- 
ious opinions  of  a  man  who  avows  an  attitude  like  that  ? 

Faraday, —  to  come  now  to  a  scientific  illustration,  so 
that  you  will  not  think  I  am  too  hard  on  theologians, — 
Faraday  belonged  to  one  of  the  most  orthodox  sects  in 
England ;  and  he  used  to  say  deliberately  that  he  kept  his 
religion  and  his  science  apart.  He  says,  "  When  I  go  into 
my  closet,  I  lock  the  door  of  my  laboratory ;  and,  when  I  go 
into  my  laboratory,  I  lock  the  door  of  my  closet."  He  did 
very  wisely  to  keep  them  apart ;  for,  if  they  had  got  together, 
there  would  certainly  have  been  an  explosion. 

Another  scientific  illustration  is  Agassiz.  Agassiz  uncon- 
sciously wrought  out  and  developed  some  of  the  most  won- 
drous and  beautiful  proofs  of  evolution  that  the  world  has 
ever  known  ;  and  yet  he  fought  evolution  to  the  last  day  of 
his  life,  simply  because  he  had  accepted  the  other  theory. 
And  he  got  it  into  his  head  that  there  was  something  about 
evolution  that  tended  to  injure  religion  and  degrade  man, — 
not  a  rational  objection,  not  a  scientific  objection,  but  a 
feeling,  a  prejudice. 

There  is  another  class  of  people  that  I  must  refer  to.  In- 
stitutions and  organizations  come  into  being,  created,  in  the 
first  place,  as  the  embodiment  and  expression  of  new  and 
grand  truths ;  and  after  a  while  their  momentum  becomes 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?   261 

such  that  the  persons  who  are  connected  with  them  cannot 
control  their  movements,  and  these  persons  become  victims 
of  the  organizations  and  institutions  to  which  they  belong. 
So,  when  a  new  truth  appears,  the  old  organization  rolls 
on  like  a  Juggernaut  car,  and  crushes  the  life,  so  far  as  it  is 
possible,  out  of  everything  in  its  way.  Take,  for  example, 
—  and  note  what  a  power  it  is  and  what  an  unconscious 
bribe  it  is  to  those  who  belong  to  it, —  the  great  Anglican 
Church.  A  man's  ambitions,  if  he  has  learning,  power,  abil- 
ity, tell  him  that  there  is  the  Archbishopric  of  Canterbury- 
ahead  of  him  as  a  possibility.  His  hopes,  the  chances  of 
promotion  and  power,  are  with  the  institution.  And,  then, 
it  is  such  a  tremendous  social  influence.  It  is  no  wonder, 
then,  that  men  who  are  not  over-strong,  who  have  not  the 
stuff  in  them  out  of  which  heroes  are  made,  should  cling  to 
the  institution  and  remain  loyal  to  it,  even  while  they  are 
false  to  the  truth  that  used  to  animate  it  and  for  which 
alone  any  institution  ought  to  exist. 

Let  me  give  you  another  illustration.  Edward  Temple, 
late  Bishop  of  London,  and  who  is  now  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  had  a  priest  of  the  established  Church  come 
to  him  and  make  a  confession  of  holding  certain  beliefs 
which  he  knew  were  heretical.  The  archbishop  said  to  him 
frankly :  As  Edward  Temple,  I  believe  them,  I  am  in  sym- 
pathy with  your  views.  As  the  head  of  the  English  Church, 
I  must  be  opposed  to  them  ;  and  the  opinions  which  you  hold 
cannot  be  tolerated.  That  is  what  the  influence  of  a  great 
organization  may  come  to. 

Let  me  give  you  another  concrete  illustration.  Here  is 
our  American  Bible  Society,  which  publishes  and  circulates 
millions  of  Bibles  all  over  the  world.  It  is  obliged,  as  at 
present  organized,  to  print  and  distribute  the  King  James 


262  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

version  of  the  Bible ;  but  there  is  not  a  scholar  or  a  minister 
connected  with  the  organization  anywhere  who  does  not 
know  —  at  least,  since  the  revision  at  any  rate  —  that  in  many 
important  respects  the  King  James  version  is  not  an  accu- 
rate translation  of  the  original,  even  if  that  is  conceded  to 
be  infallible.  So  that  this  organization  stands  to-day  in  the 
position  of  being  obliged  to  circulate  all  over  the  world  for 
God's  truth  any  number  of  teachings  that  are  simply  blun- 
ders of  the  translator,  of  the  copyist,  or  interpolated  pas- 
sages that  have  come  down  from  the  past. 

So  men  in  every  direction  become  persuaded  that  they 
must  be  loyal  to  the  organization.  I  know  cases  where  a 
minister  in  conversation  with  a  friend  has  said :  So  long  as  I 
remain  a  member  of  this  Church,  I  have  got  a  great  institu- 
tion back  of  me,  and  I  can  accomplish  so  much  socially  and 
in  every  way  on  account  of  it.  I  know  I  do  not  believe  half 
of  the  creed,  but  any  number  of  other  ministers  are  in  the 
same  box.  And  so  they  stay  true  to  the  organization,  while 
truth  to  the  truth  is  sacrificed. 

One  other  influence  that  keeps  so  many  of  these  old  ideas 
alive  —  or  prolongs  their  existence  beyond  the  natural 
term  —  is  right  in  here.  Any  number  of  men,  educated, 
strong,  prominent  men,  give  their  countenance  and  influence 
to  the  support  of  old-time  religious  organizations  because 
they  believe  that  somehow  or  other  they  are  serviceable  as  a 
police  force  in  the  world, —  they  keep  people  quiet,  they 
help  preserve  social  order.  I  have  had  people  over  and 
over  again  say  that  they  believed  it  would  be  a  great  calam- 
ity to  disturb  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  because  it  keeps 
so  many  people  quiet.  Do  you  know,  friends,  I  regard  this 
as  the  worst  infidelity  that  I  know  of  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  It  is  doubt  of  God,  his  ability  to  lead  and  manage 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  ?    263 

his  world  without  cheating  it.  It  is  doubt  of  truth,  as  to 
whether  it  is  safe  for  anybody  except  very  wise  people,  like 
a  few  of  us  !  It  is  doubt  of  humanity,  its  capacity  to  find  the 
truth,  and  believe  in  it  and  live  on  it.  Do  you  believe  that 
God  has  made  this  universe  so  that  it  is  healthier  for  the 
masses  to  live  on  a  lie  than  it  is  for  them  to  live  on  the 
truth  ?  Is  that  your  confidence  in  God  ?  Is  that  the  kind 
of  God  you  worship  ?  It  is  not  the  kind  I  worship.  There 
is  no  danger  of  the  ignorant  masses  of  the  world  getting  wise 
too  fast,  judging  by  the  experience  of  the  past  up  to  the 
present  time.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  is  safe  ;  and  that 
is  truth.  Do  you  know  what  the  trouble  was  at  the  time  of 
the  French  Revolution  ?  It  was  not  that  the  people  began 
to  reason  and  think,  and  lost  their  faith,  as  so  frequently 
said  by  superficial  historians  :  it  was  that  they  waked  up  at 
last  to  the  idea  that  the  aristocracy  and  the  priesthood  had 
not  only  been  fleecing  them  financially  and  keeping  them 
down  socially,  but  had  been  fooling  them  religiously,  until 
at  last  they  broke  away,  having  no  confidence  left  in  God  or 
priest  or  educated  people  or  nobility  or  anything.  No 
wonder  they  made  havoc.  If  you  want  to  make  a  river 
dangerous,  dam  it  up,  keep  the  waters  back,  until  by  and  by 
the  pressure  from  the  hills  and  the  mountains  becomes  so 
great  that  it  can  be  restricted  no  longer ;  and  it  not  only 
breaks  through  the  dam,  but  bursts  all  barriers,  floods  the 
country,  sweeps  away  homes,  farms,  cattle,  human  beings, 
towns,  cities,  leaving  ruin  in  its  path.  Let  rivers  flow  as 
God  meant  them  to ;  and  they  will  be  safe. 

So  let  the  world  learn, —  learn  gradually,  and  adapt  itself 
to  new  truth  as  it  learns, —  and  there  will  be  an  even  and 
orderly  march  of  human  progress.  The  danger  is  in  our 
setting  ourselves  up  as  being  wiser  than  God,  wiser  than  the 


264  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

universe,  and  doling  out  to  the  multitude  the  little  frag- 
ments of  truth  that  we  think  are  fitted  for  their  digestion. 
The  impertinence  of  it,  and  the  impiety  of  it ! 

I  must  not  stop  to  deal  with  other  reasons  which  lie  in 
my  mind  this  morning.  You  can  think  along  other  channels 
for  yourselves.  I  have  simply  wished  to  suggest  that,  in  the 
kind  of  world  we  are  living  in,  you  may  not  be  sure,  at  any 
particular  age  in  history,  that  a  set  of  ideas  is  going  to  be 
accepted  by  the  multitude  merely  because  they  are  true ; 
and,  because  they  are  not  accepted  at  once,  you  are  not, 
therefore,  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  not  true. 
There  never  has  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  world 
when  the  truth  was  not  in  the  minority.  Go  back  to  the 
time  of  Jesus :  do  you  not  remember  how  the  people  asked 
whether  any  of  the  scribes  or  the  Pharisees  believed  on 
him  ?  They  were  ready  to  accept  him  if  they  could  go  with 
the  crowd ;  but  it  never  occurred  to  them  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  it  was  their  duty  to  go  with  him  while  he 
was  alone,  as  to  whether  two  or  three  might  not  represent 
some  higher  conception  of  God,  .some  forward  step  on  the 
part  of  humanity.  Consider  for  just  a  moment,  let  it  be 
in  literature,  in  art,  in  government,  in  ethics,  anywhere, — 
find  out  where  the  crowd  is,  and  you  will  find  where  the 
truth  is  not.  Disraeli  made  a  very  profound  remark  when 
he  said  that  a  popular  opinion  was  always  the  opinion  which 
was  about  to  pass  away.  By  the  time  a  notion  gets  ac- 
cepted by  the  crowd,  the  deeper  students  are  seeing  some 
higher  and  finer  truth  towards  which  they  are  reaching. 

The  pioneers  are  always  in  the  minority.  The  vanguard 
of  an  army  is  never  so  large  as  the  main  body  that  comes 
along  behind  after  the  way  has  been  laid  out  for  it. 

"  Then  to  side  with  Truth  is  noble  when  we  share  her  wretched  crust." 


Why  are  not  all  Educated  People  Unitarians  f    265 

That  is  Lowell's  suggestion,  in  that  famous  poem  of  his.  If 
we  care  for  truth,  we  shall  not  wait  until  it  becomes  popular. 
The  truth  in  any  direction  to-day,  if  we  had  the  judgment 
of  the  world,  would  be  voted  down.  Christianity  would 
be  voted  down  among  the  religions ;  Protestantism  would 
be  voted  down  in  Christianity;  and  the  highest  and  finest 
thinkers  in  the  Protestant  churches  would  be  voted  down 
by  the  majority  of  the  members. 

Do  not  be  disturbed,  then,  or  troubled,  because  you  have 
not  the  crowd  and  the  shouting  accompanying  you  on  your 
onward  march ;  and  remember  that  there  must  be  something 
of  heroism  in  this  consecration  to  truth.  I  wish  to  quote  to 
you,  as  bearing  on  this  truth,  a  wonderfully  fine  word  which 
I  have  just  come  across  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Cosmopoli- 
tan Magazine, —  the  word  of  the  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed,  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  says,  "  One 
with  God  may  be  a  majority ;  but  crucifixion  and  the  fagot 
may  antedate  the  counting  of  the  votes."  But,  if  it  means 
(."ucifixion  and  the  fagot,  and  we  claim  to  be  followers  of  the 
Nazarene  and  worthy  of  him,  even  for  that  we  shall  not 
shrink.  It  is  our  business  simply  to  raise  the  question,  and 
try  to  answer  it  for  ourselves,  Which  way  must  I  go  to  fol- 
low the  truth  ?  And  that  way  I  must  tread,  whether  it 
means  life  or  death,  whatever  the  consequences ;  for  the 
truth-seeker  is  the  only  God-seeker. 


WHERE  IS  THE  EVANGELICAL 
CHURCH? 


As  you  are  aware,  there  are  certain  churches  that  have 
taken  the  name  of  "  Evangelical,"  thereby,  of  course,  put- 
ting forth  the  claim  that  in  some  special  or  peculiar  way 
they  have  the  gospel  in  keeping.  For  "  Evangel "  is  the 
word  translated  "gospel,"  " evangelist "  is  a  "preacher  of 
the  gospel,"  "  Evangelical "  is  the  appropriate  name  for  the 
church  whose  ministers  preach  the  gospel.  And  the  word 
"gospel,"  as  you  know,  translated,  means  "  good  news."  It 
is  the  proclamation  of  hope,  of  something  that  the  world  has 
been  groping  in  darkness  for,  a  message  that  should  lift  the 
burden  off  the  human  heart,  make  men  stronger  to  endure, 
fill  them  with  cheer  in  the  midst  of  life's  difficulties  and 
dangers,  and  give  them  a  trust  with  which  to  walk  out  into 
the  darkness  that  lies  at  the  end. 

A  certain  section,  I  say,  of  the  Christian  Church  has 
appropriated  this  name  ;  and  by  common  consent  it  has  been 
conceded  to  it.  And  as  usage  makes  language,  and  the  dic- 
tionaries only  record  the  results  of  popular  usage,  why,  of 
course,  we  must  confess  that  this  use  of  words  is  right. 
Right  in  that  sense,  I  say.  But  I  wish  to  go  back  of  this 
popular  usage  this  morning,  and  raise  the  question  as  to 
whether  these  churches  that  claim  the  title  are  the  ones  to 
whom  it  peculiarly  or  exclusively  belongs.  I  wish  to  put 
forward  the  claim  that  we,  though  the  idea  is  entirely 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church  •  267 

against  popular  thought,  are  really  the  ones  who  are 
preaching  the  gospel  of  God,  and  that  the  liberals  of  the 
world  come  nearer  to-day  to  proclaiming  the  actual  original 
gospel  of  Jesus  the  Christ  than  do  any  other  body  of  Chris- 
tians in  the  world.  I  wish  to  do  this,  not  in  any  spirit  of 
antagonism,  but  simply  by  way  of  clear  definition,  and  that 
we  may  understand  where  we  are,  and  may  unfalteringly  and 
trustingly  and  loyally  and  hopefully  go  on  to  do  the  highest 
work  that  was  ever  committed  to  human  hands. 

At  the  outset,  though  it  will  necessitate  my  saying  cer- 
tain things  which  I  have  said  to  you  before,  I  must  outline 
briefly  that  body  of  doctrine  which  goes  by  the  name  of 
"  Evangelical."  I  will  not  go  back  two  or  three  hundred 
years  to  include  in  it  such  dogmas  as  Foreordination,  Elec- 
tion, the  Damnation  of  non-Elect  or  non-Baptized  Infants, 
though  these  doctrines  still  remain  in  the  creeds.  I  will 
take  what  must  be  considered  the  simpler  and  fairer  course 
of  confining  myself  to  setting  forth  those  beliefs  which  are 
generally  accepted,  and  which  are  made  a  part  of  the  creed 
of  the  so-called  "Evangelical  Alliance";  that  is,  an  or- 
ganization including  representatives  of  all  the  great  so-called 
Evangelical  Churches.  These  beliefs,  in  brief,  are  that  God 
created  the  world  perfect  in  the  first  place,  but  that  in  a 
very  short  time  it  was  invaded  by  the  evil  powers,  and  man- 
kind rebelled  against  the  Creator,  and  became  the  subjects 
of  the  devil  as  the  god  of  this  world.  Then  man,  by  thus 
rebelling  against  God,  lost  his  intellectual  power  to  discern 
truth,  became  mentally  unable  to  discover  spiritual  truth, 
to  find  the  divine  way  in  which  he  ought  to  walk ;  and  that 
he  became  morally  incapable,  so  that,  even  when  the  truth 
was  presented  to  him,  he  felt  an  aversion  towards  it,  and 
was  disinclined  to  accept  it.  The  next  point  is  — this  being 


.•268  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

"the  condition  of  things  —  that  God  began  to  reveal  himself 
:to  the  world,  first,  by  angel  messengers,  by  prophets,  by  in- 
spired men,  and  that  then  at  last,  through  certain  chosen 
mediums,  he  wrote  a  book  telling  men  the  truth  about  their 
'condition,  about  his  feeling  towards  them,  about  what  they 
•ought  to  do,  and  the  destiny  involved  in  the  kind  of  life 
they  should  live  here.  After  the  world  had  been  in  exist- 
ence about  four  thousand  years,  according  to  this  teaching, 
and  very  little  headway  had  been  made  even  among  the 
chosen  people, —  the  few  that  had  been  selected  from  the 
great  outside  and  wandering  nations, —  God  himself  comes 
down  to  earth,  by  means  of  a  woman  specially  prepared  to 
be  his  mother  he  is  born  without  a  human  father.  He 
lives,  he  suffers,  he  dies.  This,  after  one  theory  or  another, 
—  I  need  not  go  into  them, —  to  make  it  possible  for  God 
to  forgive,  and  to  enable  him  to  save  those  who  should  ac- 
cept the  terms  which  he  should  offer. 

Then,  after  his  withdrawal  from  the  earth,  his  Church 
is  organized  under  the  special  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Its  mission  is  to  proclaim  the  gospel  among  all  nations. 
That  proclamation  has  gone  on ;  but  after  two  thousand 
years  not  a  third  of  the  world  has  heard  the  gospel,  not  a 
third  of  the  people  who  walk  the  planet  knows  anything 
about  the  book  that  has  been  written.  But  they  still 
stumble  along  in  darkness,  worshipping  anything  except 
the  one  only  and  true  God.  So  that  this  effort  up  to  the 
present  time  would  strike  us,  if  we  judged  it  as  a  human 
device,  as  being  a  sad  and  lamentable  failure. 

The  upshot  of  this,  according  to  the  Evangelical  creed, 
is  that  the  great  majority  of  the  world  is  to  be  perma- 
nently lost.  Only  a  few,  those  who  are  converted  or  those 
becoming  members  of  the  true  Church,  connected  with  it 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church  1  269 

sacramentally  or  in  some  way, —  only  the  few  are  to  be 
saved,  and  the  great  majority  outcast  forever. 

This,  in  substance,  makes  up  what  has  been  called  the 
gospel ;  and  those  who  claim  that  they  are  preaching  the 
gospel  are  preaching  these  things  as  true.  I  am  well 
aware  —  and  I  would  not  have  anybody  suppose  that  I 
overlooked  it  —  that  this  creed  is  undergoing  very  striking 
and  marked  changes,  and  that  a  great  many  of  those  things 
which  some  of  us  look  upon  as  more  objectionable  are 
being  left  out  of  sight,  and  not  preached,  as  they  used  to 
be,  though  they  still  remain  in  the  creeds. 

I  am  aware,  for  example,  that  what  it  is  to  be  orthodox 
or  evangelical  has  been  reduced  to  very  low  terms  as  com- 
pared with  those  which  I  have  just  set  forth ;  that  is  to 
say,  reduced  to  very  low  terms  in  certain  quarters.  For 
instance,  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  of  Brooklyn,  tells  us  that  we 
need  not  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  any  more ; 
that  we  need  not  believe  in  the  old-time  Trinity ;  that  we 
need  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  essentially  different  from 
a  man ;  \ve  need  not  believe  in  the  virgin  birth,  unless  we 
find  it  easy  to  accept  it.  But  the  two  things  which  he  tells 
us  we  must  believe  in  order  to  be  orthodox,  or  evangelical, 
are  that  in  some  way,  though  he  does  not  define  how,  the 
Bible  contains  a  special  message  from  God  to  the  world, 
and  that  in  some  way  Jesus  particularly  and  specially  repre- 
sents God,  and  that  he  reveals  him  to  men,  so  that,  when 
he  speaks,  he  speaks  with  authority,  as  representing  divine 
truth.  Everlasting  Damnation  eliminated,  Foreordinatior. 
not  referred  to,  the  Trinity  transformed,  Infallibility  no 
longer  insisted  on,  the  humanity  of  Jesus  granted, —  to  be 
orthodox,  according  to  Dr.  Abbott,  has  become  a  com- 
paratively simple  thing. 


270  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

In  my  conversations  with  clergymen  of  other  churches 
during  the  past  winter  I  have  discovered  that  there,  too, 
among  certain  men,  the  conditions  of  being  orthodox  are 
a  great  deal  simpler  than  they  were  a  hundred  years  ago. 
An  Episcopalian  tells  me  it  is  only  necessary  to  accept  the 
Nicene  and  the  Apostles'  Creeds,  and  that  even  then  one 
is  at  liberty  to  interpret  them  as  he  pleases ;  that  this  is 
what  constitutes  Orthodoxy  and  makes  one  evangelical. 

But  this  process  of  eliminating  the  hard  doctrines  has  not 
gone  on  in  any  authoritative  way  on  the  part  of  the  Church 
itself.  There  has  been  no  proclamation  of  any  such  liberty 
allowed ;  and  I  am  not  aware  that  the  most  of  these  men 
have  made  any  public  statement  in  their  own  churches  of 
these  positions.  It  may  be  known  through  personal  con- 
versations that  they  hold  these  views ;  and,  if  they  are 
rendering  good  service,  they  may  not  be  disturbed  by  the 
church  authorities  in  their  positions. 

So  much,  then,  for  a  statement  as  .to  what  constitutes  the 
Evangelical  Church,  as  to  what  must  be  the  message  of  the 
minister  who  is  to  preach  "  the  gospel  of  Christ." 

Now  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  for  a  moment  to 
another  way  of  looking  at  these  doctrines.  I  am  not  to 
question  their  truth.  I  simply  wish  to  ask  you  to  note  as  to 
whether,  considering  them  true,  we  should  be  inclined  to 
speak  of  them  as  good  news.  Are  they  a  gospel  ?  Can  we 
with  gladness  proclaim  them  to  men  ?  For  example,  sup- 
pose God,  after  creating  the  world,  loses  control  of  it,  an 
evil  power  comes  in, —  his  enemy, —  takes  possession  of 
his  fair  earth,  alienates  from  him  the  hearts  of  the  only  two 
of  his  children  who  are  in  existence  here,  and  who  are  to  be 
the  parents  of  a  countless  race.  Suppose  that  is  true.  Is 
it  something  we  would  like  to  believe?  Is  it  good  news? 
Can  we  call  it  an  integral  part  of  a  gospel  ? 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church?  271 

Suppose,  again,  that  God  writes  a  book,  an  infallible 
book,  and  gives  it  —  to  whom  ?  To  a  few  people,  to  the 
little  company  of  Jews  who  lived  on  that  little  narrow  strip 
of  land  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Mediterranean.  He 
does  not  give  it  to  anybody  else.  He  has  given,  indeed, 
according  to  this  theory,  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  to 
Christendom  since  that  day.  But  think  a  moment. 

According  to  what  we  know  to  be  true  now,  man  was  on 
this  planet  for  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  years  before 
God  revealed  himself  at  all ;  and  the  race  went  stumbling 
on  and  falling  in  darkness,  no  light,  no  hand  stretched  out 
to  help,  no  voice  speaking  out  of  the  silent  heavens,  the 
world,  apparently,  absolutely  forgotten,  so  far  as  God's  truth 
was  concerned.  Suppose  that,  after  two  or  three  hundred 
thousand  years,  God  did  give  an  infallible  book  to  the  world. 
As  I  had  occasion  to  say  a  moment  ago,  comparatively  a 
very  small  part  of  his  children  have  heard  anything  about 
it.  And,  then,  what  is  very  striking,  the  proofs  of  its  having 
come  from  him  are  so  weak  that  most  of  the  wisest,  the 
best,  the  noblest  of  the  world,  cannot  accept  any  such  claim 
on  its  behalf.  Is  this,  if  it  be  true,  good  news  ?  Would 
we  speak  of  it  as  a  gospel,  something  of  which  to  be  glad, 
something  to  proclaim  to  mankind  as  a  cheer,  a  message 
from  on  high  ? 

Once  more,  suppose,  after  the  world  had  been  in  exist- 
ence for  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  years,  God  comes 
down,  incarnates  himself,  wears  a  human  body,  and  does 
what  he  can  to  save  men.  If  it  is  true,  in  the  economy  of 
the  divine  government,  that  human  souls  could  be  saved  in 
no  other  way,  is  that  good  news  ?  Would  we  think  of  it  as 
a  gospel  to  proclaim  to  mankind,  that  God  himself  must 
suffer,  must  be  outcast,  be  spit  upon,  be  reviled,  be  put  to 


272  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

death,  and  that  only  so  could  he  forgive  one  of  his  wander- 
ing children,  and  bring  him  back  to  himself  ? 

Then,  once  more,  suppose  all  this  to  be  true,  and  sup- 
pose that,  as  the  outcome  of  it  all,  the  countless  millions  of 
men  and  women  and  children  that  have  walked  the  earth 
during  the  last  three  hundred  thousand  years,  until  the  Jews 
received  their  first  light  from  heaven, —  suppose  that  they 
have  been  lost :  that  is  a  part  of  this  gospel.  Suppose 
that  since  that  time  all  the  nations  outside  of  Christendom 
have  been  lost :  that  is  a  part  of  this  gospel.  Suppose  that 
not  only  this  be  true,  but  that  all  people  in  Christendom 
who  have  not  been  members  of  churches  have  been  lost. 
Suppose  even,  as  I  used  to  hear  it  preached  when  I  was  a 
boy,  that  large  numbers  of  those  who  were  church  members 
were  not  really  children  of  God,  and  would  be  lost.  Sup- 
pose this  most  horrible  doctrine  be  true.  Is  it  good  news  ? 
Could  we  proclaim  it  with  any  heart  of  courage  as  a  part  of 
the  gospel  of  God  ? 

It  seems  to  me,  then,  that  I  am  bringing  no  railing  accu- 
sation when  I  say  that  those  Churches  that  claim  to  be  Evan- 
gelical are  not  proclaiming  a  gospel  to  the  world.  But, 
though  this  be  literally  true,  they  may  claim  that  they  are 
delivering  the  message  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  and  that,  from 
their  point  of  view,  this  is  relatively  a  piece  of  good  news, 
—  good  news,  at  any  rate,  to  the  few  who  are  going  to  be 
saved.  So  I  ask  you  now  to  turn,  while  I  examine  with  you 
for  a  few  moments  the  essence  of  the  gospel  which  Jesus 
proclaimed.  Note  its  terms.  "Jesus  came  into  Galilee, 
preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  saying: 
The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand: 
repent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel "  ;  that  is,  this  proclamation 
of  good  news,  the  coming  of  God's  kingdom.  Was  this  the 
essential  thing  in  the  gospel  of  Christ? 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church?  273 

Let  me  ask  you  now  to  look  with  me  for  a  few  moments. 
You  are  perfectly  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
cherished  a  belief  in  the  coming  of  a  Messiah  and  the 
establishment  of  God's  kingdom  here  on  earth  and  among 
men.  You  are  not  so  well  aware,  perhaps,  unless  you  have 
made  a  study  of  it,  that  a  belief  like  this  has  not  been  con- 
fined to  the  Jews.  In  many  other  nations  a  similar  expecta- 
tion has  been  cherished.  We  find  it,  for  example,  among 
some  of  the  tribes  of  our  North  American  Indians.  It  is 
world-wide,  in  other  words,  in  its  range.  It  is  no  peculiarity 
of  the  Jews.  But  let  us  confine  ourselves  a  moment  to 
their  particular  hope.  It  is  a  perfectly  natural  belief.  It 
required  no  revelation  in  order  for  it  to  grow  up.  They 
believed  that  the  God  of  the  world,  of  the  universe, 
was  their  God ;  that  they  were  his  chosen  people.  Do  you 
not  see  what  a  necessary  corollary  would  be  a  belief  in  their 
ultimate  prosperity  and  triumph  ?  God  would  certainly 
bless  and  give  the  kingdom  to  that  people  which  he  had 
specially  selected  for  his  own.  And  so,  as  the  coming  of  the 
kingdom  was  postponed,  they  believed  that  it  was  because 
they  had  not  complied  with  the  divine  conditions,  they  had 
not  kept  the  law  or  they  had  not  been  good,  they  had  not 
obeyed  him.  Somehow,  they  had  done  wrong ;  and  that  was 
the  reason  the  kingdom  so  long  delayed. 

Remember  another  thing.  We  have  come,  in  this  modern 
time,  to  place  the  kingdom  away  off  in  another  world  after 
the  close  of  this  life.  The  Jews  had  no  such  belief  about 
it.  They  expected  it  to  come  right  here  on  this  poor  little 
planet  of  ours ;  and  they  expected  that  a  kingdom  was  to  be 
set  up  which  was  not  only  to  place  them  at  the  head  of  hu- 
manity, but  through  them  was  to  bless  all  mankind.  Differ- 
ent thinkers  among  them  held  different  views,  but  this  in 


274  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

substance  was  the  belief ;  and  they  were  constantly  looking 
for  signs  of  this  imminent  revolution  which  was  to  make  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world  the  kingdoms  of  our  God  and  of  his 
Christ, —  that  is,  his  Anointed  One. 

John  the  Baptist  preached  that  this  kingdom  was  coming. 
But  he  was  imprisoned  -and  beheaded,  having  come  into  con- 
flict with  the  civil  authority.  Jesus,  then,  having  come  from 
Nazareth,  where  he  had  studied  and  thought  and  brooded 
over  the  divine  will,  takes  up  this  broken  work  of  John,  and 
begins  a  proclamation  of  the  gospel ;  and  the  one  thing 
which  constituted  that  gospel  was :  —  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand,  repent  and  believe  ;  accept  this  statement.  And 
note  that  "  repent "  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  did  not  mean  what 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  associate  with  it.  The  New 
Testament  word  translated  "repent"  means  change  your 
purpose,  change  your  method  of  life.  You  have  not  been  in 
accord  with  the  truth,  you  have  not  been  obedient  to  God ; 
turn  about,  come  into  accord  with  the  divine  law,  become 
obedient  to  the  divine  message. 

Jesus  taught  no  kingdom  in  any  other  world.  He  be- 
lieved that  the  kingdom  was  to  be  here.  For,  even  after 
he  had  disappeared  from  the  sight  of  men, —  and  this  re- 
flects in  the  clearest  possible  way  the  burden  of  his  mes- 
sage,—  his  disciples  expected,  not  that  they  were  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  some  other  planet  or  into  an  invisible  world  to  find 
the  kingdom,  but  that  Jesus  was  to  come  back,  to  return  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  establish  the  kingdom  here. 

The  kingdom,  then,  that  Jesus  preached  was  a  kingdom 
of  righteousness  here  on  this  earth,  among  just  the  kind  of 
people  that  we  are.  And,  note,  he  said,  This  kingdom  of 
God  does  not  come  by  observation.  You  are  not  to  say,  Lo 
here,  Lo  there,  look  for  wonders.  He  says,  The  kingdom  of 


WJiere  is  the  Evangelical  Church  ?  275 

God  is  within  you,  or  among  you.  It  is  translated  both 
ways ;  and,  I  suppose,  nobody  knows  which  way  it  ought  to 
be.  I  believe  both.  The  kingdom  of  God  that  Jesus 
preached  is  essentially  in  us.  It  is  also,  after  it  is  in  a  few 
of  us,  among  us,  right  here  already,  so  far  as  it  extends, 
and  reaching  out  its  limits  and  growing  as  rapidly  as  men 
discern  it  and  become  obedient  to  its  laws. 

Now  I  have  been  asked  a  great  many  times  how  I  can  be 
sure,  or  practically  sure,  as  to  what  sayings  in  the  Gospels 
are  really  those  of  Jesus  and  what  are  traditional  in  their 
authority,  what  are  doubtfully  his.  I  cannot  go  into  a  long 
explanation  this  morning ;  but  I  want  to  suggest  one  line  of 
thought.  And  I  do  this  because  I  wish  it  to  be  the  basis  of 
a  statement  that  Jesus  has  not  made  any  of  these  things 
that  are  to-day  labelled  "  Evangelical "  any  essential  part  of 
his  gospel  at  all.  Jesus,  for  example,  does  not  preach  any 
Garden  of  Eden  or  any  Fall  of  Man.  Jesus  says  nothing 
about  any  infallible  book.  Jesus  says  not  a  word  about  any 
Trinity.  He  nowhere  makes  any  claim  to  be  God.  His  doc- 
trine concerning  the  future  is  doubtful.  But  one  thing  which 
I  wish  to  insist  upon  is  perfectly  clear :  the  conditions  of  citi- 
zenship in  the  kingdom  of  God  are  the  simplest  conceiv- 
able. He  says,  Not  those  that  say,  Lord,  Lord,  not  those 
that  multiply  their  services  and  ceremonies,  but  those  that 
do  the  will  of  my  Father  shall  enter  the  kingdom.  The 
only  condition  that  Jesus  ever  established  for  membership 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  simple  human  goodness, — 
never  anything  else. 

I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that  somebody  may  quote  to 
me,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  But  the  reply  to 
that  would  be,  The  acknowledged  statement  to-day  on  the 


2/6  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

part  of  all  competent  scholars  is  that  Jesus  never  uttered 
those  words.  They  are  left  out  of  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  New  Testament :  they  are  no  authentic  part  of  the  story 
of  his  life  or  his  teaching. 

How  can  we  find  his  words  ?  In  the  first  place  there 
are  the  great  central,  luminous  truths  which  Jesus  uttered, — 
the  fatherhood  of  God,  the  brotherhood  of  men,  goodness  as 
the  condition  of  acceptance  on  the  part  of  God.  And,  on 
the  theory  that  he  did  not  contradict  himself,  we  are  at 
liberty  to  waive  one  side  those  statements  which  grew  up 
under  the  influence  of  later  tradition,  popish  or  ecclesiasti- 
cal, and  which  plainly  contradict  these.  But  the  main  point 
I  have  in  mind  is  one  which  scholars  have  wrought  out 
under  the  name  of  the  Triple  Tradition.  It  takes  for  its 
central  thought,  "  In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses 
every  word  shall  be  established."  We  know  that  the  Gos- 
pels grew  up  through  a  long  process  of  accretion  after  a 
good  many  years.  They  were  not  written  or  planned  by 
any  one  person  ;  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  they  may  not  have 
been  written  by  anybody  whose  name  is  traditionally  con- 
nected with  them  to-day.  If,  however,  we  find  that  three 
of  the  four  witnesses  agree  in  reporting  that  he  said  or  did 
a  certain  thing,  we  feel  surer  about  it  than  when  only  one 
witness  reports  it.  And  if  two  report,  why,  even  then  we 
feel  a  little  more  certain  than  we  do  when  the  report  is  from 
only  one.  And  yet,  of  course,  the  three  may  have  omitted 
that  which  only  one  has  recorded,  and  which  is  true.  But 
scholars  have  wrought  out  along  this  line  what  is  called  the 
Triple  Tradition ;  that  is,  they  have  constructed  a  complete 
story  of  the  life  and  the  teaching  and  the  death  of  Jesus  out 
of  the  words  which  are  common  to  three  of  the  gospel  writers. 
All  of  them  tell  this  same  story ;  and  this  story  of  the  Triple 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church?  277 

Tradition  has  no  miraculous  conception,  it  has  no  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  no  ascension  into  heaven.  The  miracles  are 
reduced  to  the  very  lowest  terms,  becoming  almost  natural 
and  easy  to  be  accounted  for.  In  this  story  Jesus  teaches 
none  of  the  things  of  which  I  have  been  speaking. 

I  say,  then,  that  along  the  lines  of  the  very  best  critical 
scholarship,  coming  as  near  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  we 
possibly  can  to-day,  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  this 
which  has  usurped  the  name  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  not 
only  not  good  news,  but  it  is  not  the  news  which  Jesus 
brought  and  preached.  As  has  been  said  a  good  many 
times,  it  is  a  gospel  about  Christ  instead  of  being  the  gospel 
of  Christ. 

I  am  ready  now  to  make  the  claim  that  we  liberals  of 
the  modern  world  are  the  ones  who  come  nearer  to  preach- 
ing the  gospel  of  Christ  than  any  other  part  of  the  so- 
called  Christian  Church.  For  what  is  it  that  we  preach? 
We  preach  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.  We  preach 
that  there  is  not  a  spot  on  the  face  of  the  earth  where  we 
are  not  at  the  foot  of  a  ladder  like  that  which  Jacob  saw  in 
his  dream,  and  which  leads  up  to  the  very  throne  of  the  Al- 
mighty. Jesus  taught  that  the  kingdom  of  God  might  begin 
anywhere  and  at  any  time  in  any  human  heart.  Note  what 
Matthew  Arnold  has  called  the  secret  and  the  method  of 
Jesus.  He  says,  The  secret  of  Jesus  is  that  he  who  selfishly 
seeks  his  life  shall  lose  it :  he  who  throws  it  away  for  good 
and  God  finds  it.  Do  we  need  to  go  very  deeply  into  human 
life  to  discover  the  profound  truth  of  that  saying  ?  Seek  all 
over  the  world  for  good  and  happiness,  and  forget  to  look 
within,  and  you  do  not  find  it.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
within.  It  is  in  the  spirit,  the  temper  of  the  heart,  the  dis- 
position, the  life.  And  the  secret  of  it  is  in  cultivating  love 


278  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

and  truth  and  tenderness  and  care, —  those  things  which 
bring  us  into  intimate  connection  with  God,  which  we  mean 
when  we  say,  Be  unselfish, —  and  that  in  doing  this  we  find 
our  own  souls.  For  the  man  who  gives  out  of  himself  love 
and  tenderness  and  care,  of  necessity  cultivates  the  quali- 
ties of  love  and  tenderness  and  care ;  and  those  are  the  ones 
which  are  the  essence  of  all  soul-building.  And  he  who 
looks  outside  for  the  greatest  things  of  life  misses  them ; 
while  he  who  looks  within,  and  cultivates  the  spirit,  finds 
God  and  happiness  and  truth. 

This  gospel,  then,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand, 
is  always  ready  to  come,  is  the  gospel  which  we  proclaim. 
And  now  I  wish  to  extend  that  idea  a  little.  The  form  in 
which  Jesus  held  his  dream  of  human  good  has  changed  in 
the  process  of  the  centuries.  We  no  longer  expect  a  mirac- 
ulous revelation  of  a  kingdom  coming  out  of  the  heavens  to 
abide  on  earth.  The  form  of  it  is  changed  ;  but  the  essence 
of  it  we  hold  still, —  the  same  perfect  condition  of  men  here 
on  earth  and  in  the  future  which  Jesus  held  and  pro- 
claimed. 

Now  let  me  hint  to  you  a  few  of  the  elements  that  make 
up  this  hope  for  man  which  we  liberals  proclaim  everywhere 
as  the  gospel,  the  good  news  of  the  coming  kingdom  of 
God. 

In  the  first  place,  we  proclaim  the  possibility  of  human 
conquest  over  this  earth.  What  do  I  mean  by  that?  I 
mean  that  man  is  able  —  and  he  is  showing  that  ability  — 
ultimately  to  control  the  forces  of  this  planet,  and  make  them 
his  servants.  Within  the  last  seventy-five  years  this  in- 
creasing conquest  has  changed  the  face  of  the  planet. 
We  now  use  water  power  not  only,  but  steam,  electricity, 
magnetism.  All  these  secret  forces  that  thrill  from  planet 


Where  is  the  Evangelical  Church  f  279 

to  planet  and  sun  to  sun  we  use  as  our  household  and  fac- 
tory drudges,  our  every-day  servants.  And  it  needs  only  a 
little  imagination,  looking  along  the  lines  of  past  progress, 
to  see  the  day  when  man  shall  stand  king  of  the  earth. 
He  shall  make  all  these  forces  serve  him.  I  believe  that 
we  have  only  just  begun  this  conquest.  Already  the  won- 
ders about  us  eclipse  the  wonders  of  novelist  and  dreamer ; 
and  yet  we  have  only  begun  to  develop  them.  What  fol- 
lows from  this  ?  When  we  have  completed  the  conquest 
of  the  earth,  when  we  have  discovered  God's  laws  of  matter 
and  force  and  are  able  to  keep  them,  it  means  the  abolition 
of  all  unnecessary  pain, —  unnecessary  pain,  I  say ;  for  all 
that  pain  which  is  not  beneficent,  which  is  not  inherent  in 
the  nature  of  things,  is  remedial.  And  we  preach  the  gos- 
pel, the  coming  of  God's  kingdom  when  pain  shall  be 
abolished,  and  shall  pass  away. 

Another  step :  —  We  preach  the  gospel  of  the  abolition 
of  disease.  We  have  already,  in  the  few  civilized  centres 
of  the  world,  made  the  old  epidemics  simply  impossible. 
They  are  easily  controlled.  Nearly  every  one  of  those 
that  rise  to  threaten  Europe  and  America  to-day  come 
from  the  religious,  ignorant,  wild  fanaticism  of  Asia,  be- 
yond the  range  of  our  civilized  control.  The  conditions  of 
disease  are  discoverable ;  and  the  day  will  come  when, 
barring  accidents  here  and  there,  well-born  people  may 
calmly  expect  to  live  out  their  natural  term  of  years.  We 
preach  this  gospel,  then,  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  which 
disease  shall  no  more  exist. 

We  preach  a  gospel  that  promises  a  time  when  war 
shall  be  no  more.  At  present  wars  are  now  and  then  inevi- 
table;  but  they  are  brutal,  they  are  unspeakably  horrible. 
And  how  any  one  who  uses  the  sympathetic  imagination  can 


280  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

rejoice,  not  over  the  victory,  but  over  the  destruction  of  life 
and  property  which  the  victory  entails,  I  cannot  understand. 
We  have  reached  a  time  when  civilized  man  no  longer  thinks 
he  must  right  his  wrong  with  his  fists  or  a  club  or  a  knife 
or  a  pistol.  On  the  part  of  individuals  we  call  this  a  rever- 
sion to  barbarism.  The  time  will  come,  and  we  are  ad- 
vancing towards  it,  when  it  will  be  considered  just  as  much 
a  reversion  to  barbarism  on  the  part  of  families,  states, 
nations,  and  when  we  shall  substitute  hearts  and  brains  for 
bruises  and  bullets  in  the  settlement  of  the  world's  misun- 
derstandings. We  preach,  then,  a  gospel  of  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom  in  which  there  shall  be  no  more  war.  And 
then  life  under  the  fair  heavens  will  be  sweet. 

There  shall  be  no  more  hunger  in  that  kingdom.  To-day 
see  what  confronts  us, —  bread  riots  in  Spain  and  in  Italy, 
thousands  of  people  hungry  for  food.  And  yet,  if  we  would 
give  ourselves  to  the  development  of  the  resources  of  this 
planet  instead  of  to  their  destruction,  this  fair  earth  could 
support  a  hundred  times  its  present  population  in  plenty 
and  in  peace.  There  shall  be  no  more  famine  in  that  king- 
dom the  gospel  of  which  we  preach. 

Then,  when  men  have  lived  out  their  lives,  learned  their 
lessons,  and  stand  where  the  shadow  grows  thicker,  so  that 
we  try  in  vain  to  see  beyond,  what  then  ?  We  preach  a 
gospel  of  life,  of  an  eternal  hope.  We  believe  that  death, 
instead  of  being  the  end,  is  only  a  transition,  the  beginning 
really  of  the  higher  and  the  grander  life.  We  cannot  look 
through  the  gateway  of  the  shadow ;  but  we  catch  a  gleam  of 
light  beyond  that  means  an  eternal  day,  when  the  sun  shall 
no  more  go  down.  This  we  believe. 

And  we  do  not  partition  that  world  off  into  two  parts, —  the 
immense  majority  down  where  the  smoke  of  their  torment 


WJicrc  is  the  Evangelical  Church  f  281 

ascendeth  forever,  and  only  a  few  in  a  city  gold-paved  and 
filled  with  the  light  of  peace.  Rather  we  believe  it  is  a 
human  life  there  just  as  here,  that  we  are  under  the  law 
of  cause  and  effect,  that  salvation  is  not  a  magical  thing, 
that  we  are  saved  only  in  so  far  as  we  come  into  accord 
with  the  divine  law  and  the  divine  life.  And,  if  anybody 
says  we  preach  an  easy  gospel  because  we  eliminate  an 
arbitrary  hell,  let  him  remember  we  preach  a  harder  gospel, 
a  more  difficult  salvation, —  not  a  salvation  that  can  be 
purchased  by  a  wave  of  emotion  or  by  the  touch  of  priestly 
fingers,  a  salvation  that  must  be  wrought  out  through  co- 
working  with  God  in  the  building  of  human  character,  a 
salvation  that  is  being  right 

This  is  our  gospel ;  but  it  is  a  gospel  of  eternal  and  uni- 
versal hope,  because  we  believe  that  every  single  soul  is 
under  doom  to  be  saved  sometime,  somewhere.  We 
preach  the  inevitable  results  of  law-breaking, —  are  they  to 
last  one  year,  five,  a  hundred,  a  thousand,  a  million,  ten 
millions  ?  There  is  no  possibility  of  heaven  except  as  peo- 
ple are  in  perfect  accord  with  the  divine  law  and  the 
divine  life ;  for  that  is  what  heaven  means.  You  can  no 
more  get  heaven  out  of  a  disordered  character  than  you  can 
get  music  out  of  a  disordered  piano.  This  salvation  which 
we  preach  is  the  constituent  element  of  life.  You  can- 
not have  a  circle  if  you  break  the  conditions  of  a  circle. 
You  cannot  have  a  river  if  you  break  the  conditions  the  very 
existence  of  which  constitutes  a  river.  So  of  anything  in 
God's  natural  world.  There  are  certain  essential  things 
that  go  to  make  these  what  they  are.  So  heaven,  right- 
eousness, happiness, —  the  constituent  elements  of  these  are 
right  thinking,  right  feeling,  right  acting,  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  God,  which  make  them  possible. 


282  Our  Unitarian  Gospel 

We  believe  that  God,  through  pain,  through  suffering, 
down  through  the  winding  ways  of  darkness  and  ignorance, 
one  year,  a  million  years,  must  pursue  the  soul  of  any  one 
of  his  children  until  that  child  learns  that  suffering  follows 
wrong,  and  must  follow  it,  and  that  God  himself  cannot  help 
it,  and  so,  learning  the  lesson,  by  and  by  turns,  comes  back, 
and  says :  Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and  before 
thee,  and  am  not  worthy  to  be  thy  son :  make  me  at  least  as 
one  of  thy  hired  servants.  And  then  the  love  that  has  pur- 
sued all  the  way,  that  has  been  in  the  light  and  that  has 
been  in  the  dark,  shall  go  out  to  meet  him,  and  fall  on  his 
neck  in  loving  embrace,  and  rejoice  that  he  who  was  dead 
is  alive  again,  and  he  who  was  lost  is  found. 

This  is  the  gospel  we  preach, —  a  gospel  of  God's  eternal, 
boundless  love,  the  good  news  that  every  human  being  is 
God's  child ;  that  here  on  earth,  co-operating  with  God  and 
discovering  his  laws,  we  may  begin  the  creation  of  his  king- 
dom now  ;  that  we  may  broaden  and  enlarge  it  until  it  en- 
closes the  world ;  and  that  it  reaches  out  into  the  limitless 
ages  of  the  future.  And  this,  as  I  said,  is  the  gospel  of  the 
Christ,  changed  in  its  form,  if  you  please,  but  one  in  its 
essence ;  for  he  came,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  saying :  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  at  hand.  Change  your  purpose,  accept  the  mes- 
sage, and  come  into  accord  with  the  divine  life.  This  is 
the  gospel  that  the  Christ  preached :  this  is  the  gospel  we 
preach  to-day. 

Do  I  make,  then,  an  extraordinary  claim  when  I  say  that 
we  are  the  Evangelical  Church, —  that  the  church  which 
preaches  the  gospel  is  here  ? 


Ut-C>D      LIDKflKT 


', 


490 


•• f&JLJ 

«*f*- 


"%' 


>> 


